An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory

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.{{#tag:ref|Cochrane's article in Political Studies, defending his contention that animals have no intrinsic interest in (and so no right to) freedom,Cochrane 2009b became significant, provoking responses from the political theorist Robert Garner,Garner 2011 and the philosophers John Hadley,Hadley 2013 Andreas T. Schmidt,Schmidt 2015 and Valéry Giroux.Giroux 2016|group=note}} 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,{{cite web |title = Alasdair Cochrane |url = http://www.shef.ac.uk/politics/staff/alasdaircochrane |publisher = The University of Sheffield |access-date = 12 June 2013 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120210194218/http://www.shef.ac.uk/politics/staff/alasdaircochrane |archive-date = 10 February 2012}} 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.{{cite book |title = An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory |year = 2010 |url = http://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9780230239258 |publisher = Palgrave Macmillan |doi = 10.1057/9780230290594 |access-date = 11 June 2016 |last1 = Cochrane |first1 = Alasdair |isbn = 978-0-230-23926-5 }} 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."[http://www.palgrave.com/gb/series/14421 The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series]". Palgrave Macmillan. Accessed on 8 June 2016.

File:Alasdair Cochrane at the University of Manchester.JPG.]]

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.

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.

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.

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 VanDeVeer 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.

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.

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.

File:Carol J. Adams with Snowball.jpg (pictured) that the oppression of women and of animals is linked through the cultural practice of meat-eating.]]

Cochrane considers feminism, the final tradition he examines, in chapter seven. As with Marxism, there are historical links between feminism and animal liberation.Cochrane 2010, p. 115. Cochrane considers the putative interrelatedness, posited by some feminist theorists, of the oppression of animals and women, but denies that the liberation of animals and women are necessarily interdependent. He suggests that there are four ways that this relationship could be grounded. The first is an idea taken from theorists drawing upon ecofeminism, like Josephine Donovan. This is the claim that the domination of women and animals are both due to a patriarchal elevation of the "rational" over the "natural". The second is Carol J. Adams's argument that the connection of meat-eating and masculinity serves to oppress both women and animals, meaning that the liberation of both depends upon the end of meat-eating. The third is that, as identified by Adams and Catharine MacKinnon, women and animals are linked and oppressed by linguistic norms. For example, women might be called cow, bitch or dog, which serves to denigrate both woman and animals. The fourth is the way that both animals and women are objectified, treated as mere things to be used towards the ends of others. Cochrane argues that women are not irrational, though animals are less rational than humans, meaning that the oppression and liberation of the two groups may differ. He challenges Adams's claims about meat by envisioning a vegetarian but misogynistic society on the one hand and a society where the genders are equal but meat continues to be eaten on the other. He challenges the claims about language by observing that some animal-based insults are gender-neutral (for example, rat, pig, sheep), and some slurs to women (for example, witch, jezebel, whore) are unrelated to animals. Concerning objectification, Cochrane notes that women are not considered property under the law, though animals are. This makes their respective objectification importantly different.Cochrane 2010, pp. 117–23. Next, the author rebuts five criticisms of reason-based approaches—epitomised, for Cochrane, by Singer and Regan—to animal liberation from thinkers supportive of feminist care-based approaches,Cochrane 2010, pp. 123–30. before outlining and rejecting an emotionally driven, care-based approach to animal justice.Cochrane 2010, pp. 130–4.

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.Cochrane 2010, pp. 136–45. 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.Cochrane 2010, pp. 145–6.

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.Cochrane 2010, pp. 136–41.

Cochrane's own sympathies lie most strongly with utilitarianism and liberalism; his own account is most influenced by them.Garner 2012, p. 98. 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.Cochrane 2010, pp. 141–5. 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.Cochrane 2012, p. vii.

File:Robert Garner at the University of Manchester.JPG reviewed the book for the Journal of Animal Ethics.]]

An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory was reviewed by Garner for the Journal of Animal Ethics, the political philosopher Steve Cooke for the Political Studies Review and the sociologist Richard Seymour for the LSE Review of Books. In addition, it was reviewed by C. E. Rasmussen for Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries.{{#tag:ref|At the time their respective reviews were published, Cooke was based at the University of Manchester, while Seymour was based at the LSE. Rasmussen was based at the University of Delaware.Rasmussen 2011|group=note}} All four reviewers were broadly positive towards the work. Cooke recommended it for "readers interested both in the moral and political standing of animals and in political theory in general", the latter group because the work's methodological approach allows it to serve as a good introduction to political theory generally.Cooke 2012, p. 95. Seymour considered the book a "refreshing and comprehensive overview of a highly interesting issue".{{cite web |title = Book Review: An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory, by Alasdair Cochrane |url = http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2012/04/01/book-review-an-introduction-to-animals-and-political-theory-by-alasdair-cochrane/ |author = Seymour, Richard |publisher = LSE Review of Books |date = 12 December 2012 |access-date = 20 November 2013 }} Garner said that the work came "highly recommended"; he considered it "a very fine book", in which "Cochrane expertly simplifies and synthesizes a huge and complex literature in the limited space available to him, while retaining high scholarly standards". Garner also praised the fact that the book remained interesting, unlike many textbooks. Rasmussen said that the book came "highly recommended" for undergraduate and graduate students as well as non-specialist audiences.

Palgrave Macmillan advertised the book with quotes taken from Cooke and Garner's respective reviews, as well as with quotes from Daniel A. Dombrowski and Siobhan O'Sullivan. Dombrowski was quoted as saying that the "book will be welcomed by all who are interested in the relationship between non-human animals and political theory, a relationship that has been underexplored by scholars. Highly recommended!" Meanwhile, O'Sullivan wrote:

{{quote|quote=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.}}

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. 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. 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.

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.Garner 2012, p. 99. 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". 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". For Garner,

{{quote|quote=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.}}

Further, Garner suggests that Cochrane is "perhaps unduly uncritical of the utility of employing justice as a means to protect the interests of animals". He outlines two ways that animals might be protected without being the recipients of justice; first, they may be owed direct duties outside of justice, or, second, they might be protected by means of indirect duties, meaning that they are protected because of what humans owe to one another.Garner 2012, pp. 99–100. Despite raising these themes in his review of An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory, Garner later rejected both possibilities in his own work, arguing that animals should be considered recipients of justice.Garner 2013, pp. 44–75. Rasmussen felt that Cochrane utilised a narrow account of the political, meaning that a range of feminist, post-colonial and post-humanist perspectives were ignored in the book.

The second theme Garner identified was the divide between ideal and nonideal theory, which he understands as a way political theory may be used to contextualise animal ethics and further the debate.Garner 2012, p. 100. Ultimately, for Garner, Cochrane's theory serves as a challenge to abolitionism, which, Garner fears, both polarises the debate and is unrealistic.Garner 2012, pp. 100, 102–3. The themes of this review were built upon in Garner's 2013 book A Theory of Justice for Animals.Garner 2013. In the course of his review of the book, Garner looked forward to the release of Cochrane's second book,Garner 2012, pp. 101–2. Animal Rights Without Liberation, which offers a lengthier defence of the interest-based rights theory.Cochrane 2012.

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",{{cite web |title = Launch of Pioneering Book Series on Animal Ethics |url = http://www.oxfordanimalethics.com/2011/02/launch-of-pioneering-book-series-on-animal-ethics/ |date = 1 February 2011 |publisher = Ferrata Mora Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics |access-date = 15 July 2013 }} 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.Donaldson and Kymlicka, 2012, p. 1; Garner 2012, p. 98; Garner 2013, pp. 1, 169. 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".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. Both An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory and Animal Rights Without Liberation have become an established part of this literature.Boyer et al. 2015, p. 2; Donaldson and Kymlicka 2015, fn. 9.

The book has been published in paperback, hardback and eBook formats.

• Hardback: {{cite book |author = Cochrane, Alasdair |title = An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory |location = Basingstoke, United Kingdom |publisher = Palgrave Macmillan |date = 13 October 2010 |isbn = 978-0-230-23925-8 }}
• Paperback: {{cite book |author = Cochrane, Alasdair |title = An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory |location = Basingstoke, United Kingdom |publisher = Palgrave Macmillan |date = 13 October 2010 |isbn = 978-0-230-23926-5 }}
• eBook: {{cite book |author = Cochrane, Alasdair |title = An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory |location = Basingstoke, United Kingdom |publisher = Palgrave Macmillan |date = 13 October 2010 |isbn = 978-0-230-29059-4 |doi = 10.1057/9780230290594 }}

{{reflist|group=note}}

{{reflist|20em}}

{{refbegin|35em|indent=yes}}

• Ahlhaus, Svenja and Peter Niesen (2015). "What is Animal Politics? Outline of a new research agenda". Historical Social Research 40 (4): 7–31. {{doi|10.12759/hsr.40.2015.4.7-31}}.
• Boyer, Kurtis, Guy Scotton, Per-Anders Svärd and Katherine Wayne (2015). "[http://journals.lub.lu.se/index.php/pa/article/view/15043/13596 Editors' introduction]". Politics and Animals 1 (1): 1–5. {{open access}}
• Cochrane, Alasdair (2007a). "Animal rights and animal experiments: An interest-based approach". Res Publica 13 (3): 293–318. {{doi|10.1007/s11158-007-9037-8}}.
• (2007b). [http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/2699/1/U615648.pdf Moral obligations to non-humans] (Ph.D. thesis).
• (2009a). "Ownership and justice for animals". Utilitas 21 (4): 424–42. {{doi|10.1017/S0953820809990203}}.
• (2009b). "Do animals have an interest in liberty?". Political Studies 57 (3): 660–679. {{doi|10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00742.x}}.
• (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. {{doi|10.1080/13698230.2016.1194583}}.
• 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. {{doi|10.1111/j.1478-9302.2011.00250_17.x}}.
• Donaldson, Sue and Will Kymlicka (July 2012). "[https://www.academia.edu/2392907/Sue_Donaldson_and_Will_Kymlicka_Do_We_Need_a_Political_Theory_of_Animal_Rights_ 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. {{doi|10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199927142.013.33}}.
• Garner, Robert (2011). "In defence of animal sentience: A critique of Cochrane's liberty thesis". Political Studies 59: 175–187. {{doi|10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00848.x}}.
• (2012). "Towards a theory of justice for animals". Journal of Animal Ethics 2 (1): 98–104. {{doi|10.5406/janimalethics.2.1.0098}}.
• (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. {{doi|10.3197/096327116X14661540759395}}
• Giroux, Valéry (2016). "[https://www.academia.edu/23574482/Animals_Do_Have_an_Interest_in_Liberty Animals do have an interest in liberty]". Journal of Animal Ethics 6 (1): 20–43. {{doi|10.5406/janimalethics.6.1.0020}}.
• Hadley, John (2013). "Liberty and valuing sentient life". Ethics and the Environment 18 (1): 87–103. {{doi|10.2979/ethicsenviro.18.1.87}}.
• Linzey, Andrew and Clair Linzey (2014). "Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics". In Paul B. Thompson and David M. Kaplan (eds). Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. pp. 1467–1470. {{doi|10.1007/978-94-007-0929-4_366}}.
• Milligan, Tony (2015). "[http://journals.lub.lu.se/index.php/pa/article/view/13512/12086 The political turn in animal rights]". Politics and Animals 1 (1): 6–15. {{open access}}
• 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). "[https://www.academia.edu/11783032/Why_animals_have_an_interest_in_freedom_Historical_Social_Research_ Why animals have an interest in freedom]". Historical Social Research 40 (4): 92–109. {{doi|10.12759/hsr.40.2015.4.92-109}}.
• 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.

{{refend}}

• [https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057%2F9780230290594 An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory] at SpringerLink

{{Animal rights|state=uncollapsed|media}}

{{Portal bar|Animals|Books|Philosophy|Politics}}

{{authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Introduction to Animals and Political Theory}}

Category:2010 non-fiction books

Category:Animal ethics books

Category:Books by Alasdair Cochrane

Category:Books in political philosophy

Category:English-language non-fiction books

Category:Palgrave Macmillan books

Category:Political textbooks