https://journals.lub.lu.se/pa/issue/feed Politics and Animals 2018-10-19T11:57:25+02:00 Kurtis Boyer admin@politicsandanimals.org Open Journal Systems <p><strong><em>Politics and Animals</em>&nbsp;</strong>is a peer-reviewed, open access journal that explores the human-animal relationship from the vantage point of political science and political theory. It hosts international, multidisciplinary research and debate — conceptual and empirical — on the consequences and possibilities that human-animal relations have for politics and vice versa.</p> <p><strong class="gmail_msg"><em class="gmail_msg">Politics and Animals</em></strong>&nbsp;publishes articles on a rolling basis within the current issue. Articles accepted for publication are added continuously to the current issue until that issue closes, ensuring the fastest possible turnaround times for authors. Volume 2, Issue 1 is currently open for&nbsp;<a class="gmail_msg" href="/index.php/pa/about/submissions" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://journals.lub.lu.se/index.php/pa/about/submissions&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1478686691976000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFLQaSocKu6MyihsfTByyj1Z0D0tg">submissions</a>.</p> https://journals.lub.lu.se/pa/article/view/17462 Deliberative Democracy in Action: A Case Study of Animal Protection 2018-10-19T11:57:25+02:00 Robert Garner Admin@politicsandanimals.org <p>This article provides a case study of deliberative forums concerned with animal protection issues. It is argued that, whilst the deliberative exercises reviewed had relatively little impact on policy makers, there was some evidence of an attitude shift amongst the participants, and these tended to be in the direction of support for greater protection for animals. However, there are three important caveats to this conclusion. First, the opinion shifts documented all came about as a result of the provision of information which, strictly speaking, can be separated from deliberation. Secondly, there was no evidence of a shift in values; thirdly, and perhaps not surprisingly, shifts of opinion were less likely to occur when partisans were involved.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> 2018-03-30T00:00:00+02:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## https://journals.lub.lu.se/pa/article/view/16589 Humane Jobs: A Political Economic Vision for Interspecies Solidarity and Human–Animal Wellbeing 2018-04-09T15:41:01+02:00 Kendra Coulter admin@politicsandanimals.org <p>The economy and workforce are crucial spaces of struggle and possibility for human and animal wellbeing. In addition to critiques of harmful patterns and practices, more intellectual and political work is needed to develop and foster workforce solutions and alternatives. The problems are political and economic so the solutions must be, as well. An essential component of such a project and vision are what I call humane jobs which, succinctly, are jobs that are good for people and animals, and that are underscored by multispecies respect. In this paper, I elucidate a preliminary vision of and for humane jobs. The driving questions are these: what areas of work and which jobs benefit humans and animals, and how can more of them be created?&nbsp;I argue for both the creation of new jobs and employment sectors, and the improvement of some current positions in order to make them more humane.</p> 2017-10-30T00:00:00+01:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## https://journals.lub.lu.se/pa/article/view/15885 Cosmopolitanism in a Carnivorous World 2018-04-09T15:41:01+02:00 Matthew Leep admin@politicsandanimals.org <div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>This essay contributes to an emerging “animal turn” in political theory and International Relations by exploring the possibilities of a cosmopolitanism that is more attentive to human consumption prac- tices involving bodily harm to and destruction of animals. Intertwining Jacques Derrida’s work on hospitality and animals, Judith Shklar’s insights on legalism and passive injustice, and studies on an- imal morality and emotion, I develop what I call “vegan cosmopolitanism.” Vegan cosmopolitanism is a reimagining of cosmopolitanism that is inclusive of nonhuman animals within the global communi- ty and considers the consumption of animal products as a matter of cosmopolitan justice. The ar- guments in this essay seek to reorient cosmopolitanism as a non-anthropocentric perspective on global justice in pursuit of realizing the always-present possibilities of new and inventive ways of encountering and attending to the vulnerabilities of “other” living beings. </span></p></div></div></div> 2017-04-08T00:00:00+02:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## https://journals.lub.lu.se/pa/article/view/16274 Murder and Mattering in Harambe’s House 2018-04-09T15:41:01+02:00 Claire Jean Kim kurtis.boyer@svet.lu.se <p class="PAAbstract">This article approaches the controversy over the killing of the gorilla Harambe in the Cincinnati Zoo in May 2016 as a unique window onto the making of animalness and blackness in the contemporary U.S. The construction of the “human” in relation to both the “animal” and the “black” is explored. </p> 2017-03-31T00:00:00+02:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## https://journals.lub.lu.se/pa/article/view/15202 Putting Cruelty First: Exploring Judith Shklar’s Liberalism of Fear for Animal Ethics 2017-10-31T19:41:31+01:00 Ruth Abbey rabbey1@nd.edu <p>This paper critically examines the extent to which the debate about animal ethics can be enriched by an exploration of Judith Shklar’s liberalism of fear. Shklar’s form of liberalism proceeds from the conviction that cruelty is the greatest vice. Even though Shklar did not write with animals in mind, her work is, prima facie, promising for theorists who are concerned with animals. A focus on cruelty provides an immediate and readily-understood avenue for liberals to recognize and criticize animal suffering. Putting cruelty first also connects with the way many animal advocates talk about human mistreatment of animals. Shklar’s thinking about cruelty was powerfully shaped by Michel de Montaigne, whose essay “On Cruelty” is explicitly attentive to human cruelty to animals. Nonetheless, we need to be suspicious about how effectively a liberal conception and critique of cruelty designed for humans can be transposed to animals.  </p> 2016-12-05T10:12:24+01:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## https://journals.lub.lu.se/pa/article/view/15295 Neo-Republicanism as a Route to Animal Non-Domination 2017-10-31T19:41:31+01:00 Michael Allen ALLENMP@mail.etsu.edu Erica von Essen erica.von.essen@slu.se <p class="PAAbstract"><span lang="EN-US">In this article, we reinterpret the current political turn in animal rights theory in terms of republican as opposed to liberal political theory. By appealing to the values of liberty and fraternity as well as equality, we argue for a conception of animal liberation from human <em>domination</em> and not from <em>humanity </em>per se. This establishes a basis of liberty and fraternity in our cooperative relationships with animals in a "zoopolis," or interspecies political community. We contend that such a basis for interspecies political cooperation is not available on the more traditional model of animal liberation, where rights are derived from weak equality of the species.</span></p> 2016-11-07T19:40:24+01:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## https://journals.lub.lu.se/pa/article/view/15296 Determinants of Animal Protection Policy: A Cross-Country Empirical Study 2017-10-31T19:41:31+01:00 Alexander Holst admin@politicsandanimals.org Pim Martens admin@politicsandanimals.org <p class="PAAbstract">This study aims to identify determinants of animal protection policies. Based on a review of relevant literature and borrowing concepts from environmental policy research, we suggest three broad factors to be positively related with stricter animal protection policies: economic development, democracy, and civil society. To test the influences of these factors, we estimate an ordered logistic regression model to explain policy variations between 48 countries. As dependent variable we use the Animal Protection Index, a country ranking based on policy strictness. As independent variables we use GDP per capita, Polity Score, Civic Activism Index, and number of animal protection organizations. Results suggest that countries with stronger democratic institutions and more civil society groups focused on animal protection are likely to have stricter animal protection policies. For economic development and broad civil society strength we do not find significant effects.  Our analysis broadens the basis for future research of more detailed policy determinants and cross-country differences in animal protection.</p><div> </div> 2016-11-07T19:40:23+01:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## https://journals.lub.lu.se/pa/article/view/13512 The Political Turn in Animal Rights 2016-11-18T17:21:04+01:00 Tony Milligan t.milligan@herts.ac.uk <p class="PAAbstract"><strong>Some of the most important, influential, and original texts on the standing of animals have, in recent years, been written not by philosophical ethicists but by political theorists such as Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka (2011), Robert Garner (2013), Alasdair Cochrane (2012), and Siobhan O’Sullivan (2011). What follows will argue that their work is partly constitutive of a “political turn” in the discourse of animal rights. Section I will try to shed some light on this idea of a political turn and its driving motivations. Sections II and III will try to show that the turn involves­ a simultaneous constraining of conceptions of human/animal equality and a broadened appeal to liberal political values. Section IV will address a concern that such a constrained conception of equality, and the allied pragmatism which goes with it, may drive the turn towards rapprochement with animal exploitation through an abandonment of the project of animal liberation. I will suggest that such a danger only arises if key commitments of the turn are combined with a further set of commitments concerning autonomy and agency, commitments that are best left behind. The concluding section, V, will briefly comment on the merits of the kind of discourse that the turn (so far) has involved.</strong></p> 2015-10-12T02:46:14+02:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## https://journals.lub.lu.se/pa/article/view/13756 The Meaning of the Great Ape Project 2017-10-23T14:40:39+02:00 Paola Cavalieri admin@politicsandanimals.org <div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><strong>It is now more than two decades since the Great Ape Project was launched. How does such a cultural and political initiative fit in the ongoing construction of a politics of animal liberation, and in the larger contemporary moral and social landscape? An albeit tentative answer to this question will be possible only in the context of an illustration of what the Great Ape project is<strong>—</strong>of its starting point, its articulation, and the objections it elicited. </strong></p></div></div></div> 2015-10-12T02:46:14+02:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## https://journals.lub.lu.se/pa/article/view/15044 Politico-Moral Apathy and Omnivore's Akrasia 2018-04-08T14:52:30+02:00 Elisa Aaltola elanaa@utu.fi <p class="PAAbstract"><strong>Awareness concerning the moral status and treatment of nonhuman animals has risen exponentially in the past few decades. Yet many of those who rationally note the unjustifiability of practices such as industrial animal farming continue to support those practices with their own life-styles. The paper investigates this perturbing obstacle to the spread of animal politics from the perspective of&nbsp;<em>akrasia</em>.&nbsp;<em>Akrasia</em>&nbsp;is an old philosophical paradox, within which one knows&nbsp;<em>x</em>&nbsp;to be true, and yet willfully acts against&nbsp;<em>x</em>—here, attention will be on "omnivore's&nbsp;<em>akrasia</em>," a state within which one voluntarily consumes products which one deems to have been produced with immoral means. Emphasis will be on depictions of&nbsp;<em>akrasia</em>&nbsp;offered by rationalist philosophers—Plato, Spinoza, and Descartes—who all accentuated misled emotions, wants, and desires, together with a lack of self-control and cultivation, as the primary sources of&nbsp;<em>akrasia</em>. Moreover, these philosophers brought forward the relevance of external influence and habit, together with cognitive defects, and suggested that&nbsp;<em>akrasia</em>&nbsp;can be overcome not only via self-control (Plato), but also through the cultivation of inner emotions and joy (Spinoza) and generosity (Descartes). It will be suggested that many aspects of omnivore's&nbsp;<em>akrasia</em>, ranging from hedonistic impulsivity to political apathy, can be explained via the qualifications offered by the rationalist school. Furthermore, the paper claims that if omnivore's&nbsp;<em>akrasia</em>&nbsp;were to become less commonplace, animal ethics and advocacy would greatly benefit from offering the type of moral arguments that underline the links between reflective cultivation, joy, and generosity.</strong></p> <div> <p class="APAReferenceCxSpFirst">&nbsp;</p> </div> 2015-10-12T02:46:14+02:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement##