Since Aristotle first set out his famous definition of the „political animal‟, numerous thinkers have re-interpreted, evaluated and attempted to extend the term to living beings Aristotle himself did not intend to endow with political rights. This essay will
primarily look at the works of thinkers like Wollstonecraft, Bentham, Latour, among others, who sought to include nature, i.e. non-human beings, into the political sphere. In their works they constantly challenged the notion of a „boundary line‟, which aims
to draw a distinction between the human and the non-human being. The main section will depart from an Aristotelian point of view in which characteristics would be absolutely necessary to having the privilege to entitlement of political rights. Afterwards,
specifics, which have been put forward by other thinkers and aim at incorporating minorities and non-humans into the political sphere, will be discussed. At the end of the piece it should become clear that ideas about a more inclusive approach to nature are neither new, nor are they bizarre and thus should not be dismissed indiscriminately. Limits of this all-encompassing inclusive approach are exemplified by the works of Nilsen.
[...]
Table of Contents
1. Widening Inclusion
2. Political Animals: From Aristotle to Modernity
3. Feminist Perspectives and the Boundaries of Exclusion
4. Extending Rights to Non-Human Beings: Bentham, Singer, and Wise
5. Nature in the Political Sphere: The Arguments of Stone and Latour
6. Limits to Inclusion: Nilsen's Critique
7. Conclusion
Objectives & Research Focus
The primary objective of this work is to examine the evolution of political inclusion by tracing how the definition of a "political animal" has been challenged and expanded from antiquity to the modern era, specifically regarding the integration of women, animals, and the natural world into the political sphere.
- The historical transition from Aristotelian exclusionary definitions of political agency.
- Feminist contributions and the paradoxes within early rights-advocacy movements.
- The shift toward non-human rights based on suffering and legal personhood.
- The construction of "The Collective" and the role of spokespersons for nature.
- Critical perspectives on the limits of expanding political rights and the role of power.
Excerpt from the Book
Jeremy Bentham and the Expansion of Inclusion
Her contemporary Jeremy Bentham took a bold step into another direction of inclusion, in trying to assign political rights to non-human beings. Bentham made for an interesting approach, as he turned the common perception of spaces upside down. For him humans were excluded from the natural realm. The aim must be to politicize the natural space and its inhabitants by incorporating humanity into it. Unlike Wollstonecraft, Bentham did not look into differences (of humans and non-humans) but similarities of living beings. In a superficially paradox turn, Bentham justifies killing and eating animals, albeit conceiving of every living being as a creature with certain rights. He can do this because his concerns lay more with inducing pain and suffering and the utilizing and treatment of animal creatures as material objects. Bentham argues against such practices on grounds of the possession of the ability to suffer.
Summary of Chapters
1. Widening Inclusion: Introduces the conceptual framework of the essay, setting the stage for an examination of the "boundary line" between human and non-human political agency.
2. Political Animals: From Aristotle to Modernity: Explores the Aristotelian origin of the "political animal" and how this exclusionary concept has been contested over centuries.
3. Feminist Perspectives and the Boundaries of Exclusion: Analyzes Mary Wollstonecraft's efforts to include women in the political sphere while simultaneously highlighting the limits of her inclusive approach regarding other marginalized groups.
4. Extending Rights to Non-Human Beings: Bentham, Singer, and Wise: Examines the philosophical shift toward recognizing the capacity to suffer as a basis for political rights, including contemporary legal activism for Great Apes.
5. Nature in the Political Sphere: The Arguments of Stone and Latour: Discusses the move to grant legal status to nature itself, focusing on the concepts of legal guardianships and the construction of "The Collective".
6. Limits to Inclusion: Nilsen's Critique: Evaluates the counter-arguments against infinite rights-expansion, focusing on power dynamics and the lack of a clear distinction between species.
7. Conclusion: Summarizes the progression of political inclusion and reflects on the remaining challenges in the ongoing debate over the human-animal divide.
Keywords
Political animal, Inclusion, Aristotle, Wollstonecraft, Bentham, Non-human rights, Collective, Legal personhood, Political sphere, Suffrage, Animal rights, Power dynamics, Speciesism, Democratic participation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this work?
The work examines the evolution of the concept of the "political animal" and how philosophers and theorists have attempted to redefine and widen the boundaries of who or what is entitled to political rights.
Which thinkers are analyzed in this collection?
The essay discusses historical and contemporary figures including Aristotle, Mary Wollstonecraft, Jeremy Bentham, Peter Singer, Steven M. Wise, Christopher Stone, Bruno Latour, and Richard Nilsen.
What is the central research question?
The research explores how the "boundary line" of democratic participation has been stretched over time to incorporate women, non-human animals, and the natural environment.
Which methodology is employed?
The work utilizes a theoretical and literature-based approach, tracing the philosophical genealogy of political inclusion from classical Greek thought to contemporary environmental and animal rights theories.
What does the main body cover?
It covers the transition from Aristotelian exclusionary politics to modern inclusive models, detailing arguments regarding capacity to suffer, legal guardianship, and the political representation of nature.
How are the key terms defined?
Key terms such as "political animal," "speech," and "The Collective" are defined through their historical and evolving philosophical contexts, particularly as challenged by feminist and environmental critics.
How does the work address the role of "Speech" in the Aristotelian sense?
The work highlights how thinkers like Stone and Latour challenged Aristotle's notion that only those possessing speech can have political rights, by proposing that spokespersons can represent those without traditional voices.
What is the significance of the 'Great Ape Project' mentioned in the text?
It serves as a practical application of Bentham's philosophy, demonstrating how arguments regarding intelligence and emotional needs are used to push for basic legal rights for non-humans.
What is Richard Nilsen's main contribution to the debate?
Nilsen provides a critical counterpoint, arguing that current efforts at inclusion often overlook the reality of power dynamics and the lack of a clear, objective biological basis for human distinctiveness.
- Quote paper
- Christian Scheinpflug (Author), 2010, Widening Inclusion, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/175323
