Political Animals: Ethics, Policy, and Practice”

society & animals 27 (2019) 1-10

brill.com/soan

Editors’ Note: Announcing New Section in Society & Animals—“Political Animals: Ethics, Policy, and Practice”

Human–animal studies (HAS; a.k.a. anthrozoology, animal studies, critical animal studies) is now an established multi-disciplinary field that provides indispensable empirical and theoretical research on human–animal relationships. In addition, growing political debates over humanity’s troubled relation- ship with wild and domestic animals has made nonhuman animals a matter of pressing environmental, social, and global concern. As our connection with animals is squarely on the public agenda, it is timely for the field to contrib- ute more directly to the development of animal-related policy and practice by increasing the use of academic research as a source of and support for policy considerations. To that end, Society & Animals (S&A) is launching a new section of the journal, “Political Animals: Ethics, Policy, and Practice.”

Call for Contributions to the New Section

We aim to make this section both rigorous, dialogic, and accessible. Articles may focus on case studies, empirical findings, theoretical analysis, or conceptual innovations. Short articles and commentary on already published papers in the literature and responses to current events or enduring world conditions are also welcome. Because of our interdisciplinary readership, we ask authors to write with both clarity and accessibility in mind. Following Aristotle’s assertion that politics and policy are ethics writ large, we are particularly interested in discussion of the ethical and prudential norms that are institutionalized in governance, politics, and culture in ways that substantially affect the well-being of people, animals, and nature. As politics can distort our moral vision and longings, this requires ongoing ethical critique. With this intersection in mind, we encourage contributors to submit articles that directly address issues of animal ethics and/or politics with policy implications. (Please see the Author Guidelines for more information about submission requirements).

In announcing this new section, we want to make clear that we take an open and inclusive approach to diverse theories, methods, and topics. We also welcome a full array of ethical, social, and political perspectives. To make all such contributions concrete and relevant, we do ask that authors give special atten- tion to drawing out the practical implications of their work. Human-animal relationships are complex interactions between people, animals, and nature. These interactions are both social and ecological, individual and collective, and range from local to global scales. We therefore encourage articles and shorter contributions that examine “political animals” from one or more of these points of view. William S. Lynn (Marsh Institute, Clark University) is the managing editor for this section. He is joined in this task by Kristin L. Stewart (Anthrozoology, Canisius College), Francisco J. Santiago-Ávila (Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison), and Stephen Vrla (Sociology & Education, Michigan State University) as associate editors, as well as by the journal’s editor-in-chief, Kenneth Shapiro (Animals & Society Institute). Please direct questions about the appropriateness of a paper for the new section to [email protected]. The following are three contexts we believe demonstrate the need for this section:

1. The Ethical Turn There is little doubt that some scholars pursue excellent work in human– animal studies from a “scientific” point of view that sees itself as empirical and free of value propositions. Yet this has not been the case in other parts of the field where the debate over ethics as both theory and motivation is intense. From early days to the present, this debate has been dominated by positions circulating around rights and welfare. The respective positions have major and very different impacts on the direc- tion of policy. Regrettably, the categorical distinction between rights and welfare is both conceptually and semantically muddled. (The addition of attempts to distinguish a liberationist position from a rights position further muddies the water). Each term has multiple referents that are not recognized as such or are often serially applied to address the issue du jour. “Rights” can refer to an ethical or legal theory, a social justice movement, and, loosely, to any moral or legal obligation of one party to one or many oth- ers. None of these are necessarily built on a single conceptual foundation. The animal rights movement, for example, is heavily influenced by Singer’s utili- tarian ethic. The term “welfare” is even more confounded. In addition to an ethical theory and, particularly for its detractors, to a distinct social justice movement, it also refers to animal welfare science, a robust subfield of HAS.

society & animals 27 (2019) 1-10