Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T21:38:11.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unruly Beasts: Animal Citizens and the Threat of Tyranny

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2014

Sue Donaldson  and
Will Kymlicka
Sue Donaldson*
Affiliation:
Independent Researcher
Will Kymlicka*
Affiliation:
Queen's University
*
7-131 King Street, Kingston, ON, K7L 2Z9, Email: cliffehanger@sympatico.ca
Department of Philosophy, Queen's University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Email: kymlicka@queensu.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many commentators—including some animal rights theorists—have argued that non-human animals cannot be seen as members of the demos because they lack the critical capacities for self-rule and moral agency which are required for citizenship. We argue that this worry is based on mistaken ideas about both citizenship, on the one hand, and animals, on the other. Citizenship requires self-restraint and responsiveness to shared norms, but these capacities should not be understood in an unduly intellectualized or idealized way. Recent studies of moral behaviour show that civil relations between citizens are largely grounded, not in rational reflection and assent to moral propositions but in intuitive, unreflective and habituated behaviours which are themselves rooted in a range of pro-social emotions (empathy, love) and dispositions (co-operation, altruism, reciprocity, conflict resolution). Fifty years of ethological research have demonstrated that many social animals—particularly domesticated animals—share the sorts of dispositions and capacities underlying everyday civility. Once we broaden our conception of citizenship to include a richer account of the bases of civic relations, it becomes clear that domesticated animals and humans can be co-creators of a shared moral and political world. We have nothing to fear, and much to gain, by welcoming their membership in the demos.

Résumé

Plusieurs commentateurs—incluant certains théoriciens des droits des animaux—ont soutenu que les animaux non humains ne peuvent pas être considérés comme des membres du démos parce qu'il leur manque les capacités critiques d'autonomie et d'agentivité morale qui seraient essentielles à la citoyenneté. Nous soutenons que cette inquiétude est fondée sur des idées erronées à propos de la citoyenneté, d'une part, et à propos des animaux, d'autre part. La citoyenneté requiert la maîtrise de soi et la sensibilité aux normes partagées, mais ces capacités ne devraient pas être comprises en un sens indûment intellectualisé ou idéalisé. De récentes études sur l'agentivité morale montrent que les relations civilisées entre les citoyens sont largement fondées, non pas dans la réflexion rationnelle et l'assentiment à des propositions morales, mais dans des comportements intuitifs, irréfléchis et habituels qui s'enracinent dans une gamme d'émotions prosociales (l'empathie, l'amour) et de dispositions prosociales (coopération, altruisme, réciprocité, résolution de conflits). Cinquante ans de recherches éthologiques ont démontré que plusieurs animaux sociaux—particulièrement les animaux domestiques—partagent le type de dispositions et de capacités rendant possible le civisme quotidien. Une fois que nous élargissons notre conception de la citoyenneté pour inclure une compréhension plus riche des bases des relations civiques, il devient évident que les animaux domestiques et les humains peuvent être les co-créateurs d'un monde moral et politique commun. Nous n'avons rien à craindre, et beaucoup à gagner, à les accueillir comme membres du démos.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 23 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alderson, Priscilla. 2008. Young Children's Rights: Exploring Beliefs, Principles, and Practice. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Andrews, Kristin. 2012. Do Apes Read Minds? Toward a New Folk Psychology. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Andrews, Kristin and Gruen, Lori. Forthcoming. “Empathy in Other Apes.” In Empathy and Morality, ed. Maibom, Heidi. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arneil, Barbara. 2009. “Disability, Self Image and Modern Political Theory.” Political Theory 37: 218–42.Google Scholar
Bandes, Susan. 2013. “Emotion and Deliberation: The Autonomous Citizen.” In Passions and Emotions, ed. Fleming, James. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Bekoff, Marc and Pierce, Jessica. 2009. Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bond, Anthony. 2012. “The sheepdog that loves to look after her litter,” Mail Online March 23, 2010. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2119233/ (March 9, 2014).Google Scholar
Bortolotti, Lisa. 2011. “Does reflection lead to wise choices?” Philosophical Explorations 14: 297–313.Google Scholar
Bryant, Taimie. 2010. “Denying Childhood and Its Implications for Animal-Protective Law Reform.” Law, Culture and the Humanities 6: 56–74.Google Scholar
Clifford, Stacy. 2012. “Making Disability Public in Deliberative Democracy.” Contemporary Political Theory 11: 211–28.Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, Juliet. 2012. Animals as Domesticates: A World View through History. East Lansing MI: Michigan State University Press.Google Scholar
de Waal, Frans. 2006. Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Waal, Frans. 2009. The Age of Empathy: Nature's Lessons for a Kinder Society. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.Google Scholar
Donaldson, Sue and Kymlicka, Will. 2011. Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Donaldson, Sue and Kymlicka, Will. 2014. “Animals and the Frontiers of Citizenship.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, doi: 10.1093/ojls/gqu001 (March 9, 2014).Google Scholar
Feuerstein, N. and Terkel, Joseph. 2008. “Interrelationship of Dogs (canis familiaris) and Cats (felis catus L.) Living Under the Same Roof.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113: 150–65.Google Scholar
Francione, Gary and Garner, Robert. 2010. The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation? New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Haidt, Jonathan. 2001. “The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgement.” Psychological Review 108: 814–34.Google Scholar
Haidt, Jonathan. 2007. “The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology.” Science 316: 998–1002.Google Scholar
Hearne, Vicki. 2007. Adam's Task: Calling Animals by Name. New York: Skyhorse Publishing.Google Scholar
Jans, Marc. 2004. “Children as Citizens: Towards a Contemporary Notion of Child Participation.” Childhood 11: 27–44.Google Scholar
Krause, Sharon. 2011. “Bodies in Action: Corporeal Agency and Democratic Politics.” Political Theory 39: 299–324.Google Scholar
Krause, Sharon. 2012. “Plural Freedom.” Politics & Gender 3: 238–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurier, Eric, Maze, Ramia and Lundin, Johan. 2006. “Putting the Dog Back in the Park: Animal and Human Mind-in-Action.” Mind, Culture, and Activity 13: 2–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McTernan, Emily. 2013. “How to Make Citizens Behave: Social Psychology, Liberal Virtues, and Social Norms.” Journal of Political Philosophy (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Merritt, Maria. 2000. “Virtue Ethics and Situationist Personality Psychology.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3: 365–83.Google Scholar
Midgley, Mary. 1973. “The Concept of Beastliness: Philosophy, Ethics and Animal Behaviour.” Philosophy 48: 111–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neale, Bren. 2004. “Introduction: Young Children's Citizenship.” In Young Children's Citizenship: Ideas into Practice, ed. Neale, Bren. York UK: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Nurse, Angus and Ryland, Diane. 2013. “A Question of Citizenship,” Journal of Animal Ethics 3: 201–07.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha. 2012. “Compassion: Human and Animal.” In Species Matters: Humane Advocacy and Cultural Theory, ed. DeKoven, Marianne and Lundblad, Michael. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, Clare. 2014. “Companion Cats as Citizens? Some Comments on Donaldson's and Kymlicka's Zoopolis ”, Dialogue FirstView: 1–9.Google Scholar
Pachirat, Timothy. 2011. Every Twelve Seconds: Industrialized Slaughter and the Politics of Sight. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 2011. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Planinc, Emma. 2014. “Democracy, Despots and Wolves.” Canadian Journal of Political Science doi:10.1017/S0008423914000183.Google Scholar
Plato. 1992. The Republic, trans. Grube, G.M.A.. Indianapolis IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Porcher, Jocelyne and Schmitt, Tiphaine. 2012. “Dairy Cows: Workers in the Shadows?” Society and Animals 20: 39–60.Google Scholar
Potter, Will. 2011. Green is the New Red: An Insider's Account of a Social Movement under Siege. San Francisco: City Light Publishers.Google Scholar
Rodman, John. 1974. “The Dolphin Papers.” North American Review (spring): 13–26.Google Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1987. “On the Social Contract.” The Basic Political Writings. Indianapolis IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Rowlands, Mark. 2012. Can Animals be Moral? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Silvers, Anita and Francis, Leslie. 2005. “Justice through Trust: Disability and the ‘Outlier Problem’ in Social Contract Theory.” Ethics 116: 40–76.Google Scholar
Smith, Kimberly. 2012. Governing Animals: Animal Welfare and the Liberal State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tiberius, Valerie and Swartwood, Jason. 2011. “Wisdom revisited: A case study in normative theorizing.” Philosophical Explorations 14: 277–95.Google Scholar
United Nations. 1989. Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989,Treaty Series, vol. 1577: 3.Google Scholar
Urbanik, Julie and Morgan, Mary. 2013. “A tale of tails: The place of dog parks in the urban imaginary.” Geoforum 44: 292–302.Google Scholar
Wall, John. 2011. “Can Democracy Represent Children? Toward a Politics of Difference.” Childhood 19: 86–100.Google Scholar
Weidenfeld, Matthew. 2011. “Comportment, not cognition: Contributions to a phenomenology of judgment.” Contemporary Political Theory 10: 232–54.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard. 1981. Moral Luck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wolch, Jennifer. 2002. “‘Anima Urbis,’ Progress in Human Geography 26: 721–42.Google Scholar
Wood, Lisa J., Giles-Corti, Billie, Bulsara, Max K. and Bosch, Darcy A.. 2007. “More Than a Furry Companion: The Ripple Effect of Companion Animals on Neighborhood Interactions and Sense of Community.” Society and Animals 15: 43–56.Google Scholar