Party for Animals: Introducing Students to Democratic Representation of Nonhumans

in Society & Animals
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.

Help

 

Have Institutional Access?

Login with your institution. Any other coaching guidance?

Connect

Abstract

This article aims to gauge students’ perceptions of the Dutch Party for Animals (PvdD) in order to reflect on the political representation of nonhumans (animals). The support for political representation of nonhumans is based on the ethical underpinning of deep ecology; growing recognition of the importance of sustainability; and increased societal support for animal rights and welfare. This article reflects on these developments using Bachelor students’ assignments from a Sustainable Business course, which asked them to reflect on the underlying principles of the PvdD. Student assignments indicate that educational efforts targeted at fostering ecological citizenship have a positive effect on the recognition and acceptance of ecocentric values.

Sections
References
  • AndolinaM. W.JenkinsK.ZukinC. & KeeterS. (2003). Habits from home, lessons from school: Influences on youth civic engagement. PS: Political Science & Politics36(2) 275-280.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AWP (Animal Welfare Party). (n.d.). Animal Welfare Party is part of a global movement. Retrieved from https://www.animalwelfareparty.org/about/similar-initiatives/.

    • Export Citation
  • BaxterB. (2005). A theory of ecological justice. New York, NY: Routledge.

  • BisgouldL. (2014). It’s time to re-evaluate our relationship with animals [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr26scqsIwk.

    • Export Citation
  • BorràsS. (2016). New transitions from human rights to the environment to the rights of nature. Transnational Environmental Law5(1) 113-143.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BurnardP.GillP.StewartK.TreasureE. & ChadwickB. (2008). Analysing and presenting qualitative data. British Dental Journal204(8) 429.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cafaro P. J. & Primack R. B. (2013). Ethical issues in biodiversity protection. In S. A. Levin (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Biodiversity (pp. 309-318). Waltham, MA: Academic Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CallicottJ. B. (1980). Animal liberation: A triangular affair. Environmental Ethics2(4) 311-328.

  • CallicottJ. B. (1989). Animal liberation and environmental ethics: Back together again. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1703&context=bts.

    • Export Citation
  • CristE. (2013). Ecocide and the extinction of animal minds. In M. Bekoff (Ed.) Ignoring nature no more: The case for compassionate conservation. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CristE. & KopninaH. (2014). Unsettling anthropocentrism. Dialectical Anthropology38(4) 387-396.

  • DeemerD. (2015). Poor chicken: Why poor people care more about animal welfare than wealthy shoppers. Retrieved from https://thebluereview.org/why-poor-people-care-more-about-animal-welfare-than-wealthy-shoppers/.

    • Export Citation
  • DobsonA. (2003). Citizenship and the environment. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

  • DunlapR. E. & YorkR. (2008). The globalization of environmental concern and the limits of the postmaterialist values explanation: Evidence from four multinational surveys. The Sociological Quarterly49529-563.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • EckersleyR. (1992). Environmentalism and political theory: Toward an ecocentric approach. London, United Kingdom: UCL Press.

  • ErlangerA. C. E. & TsytsarevS. V. (2012). The relationship between empathy and personality in undergraduate students’ attitudes toward nonhuman animals. Society & Animals20(1) 21-38.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • FreireP. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. Ramos Trans.). New York, NY: Herder and Herder (Original work published 1968).

  • GaiserW.De RijkeJ. & SpannringR. (2010). Youth and political participation—Empirical results for Germany within a European context. Young18(4) 427-450.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GrantJ. & JungkunzV. G. (Eds.). (2016). Political theory and the animal/human relationship. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

  • GrayJ. & CurryP. (2016). Ecodemocracy: Helping wildlife’s right to survive. ECOS3718-27.

  • GruenL. (2015). Samuel Dubose, Cecil the lion and the ethics of avowal. Retrieved from http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/7/samuel-dubose-cecil-the-lion-and-the-ethics-of-avowal.html.

    • Export Citation
  • InglehartR. & FlanaganS. C. (1987). Value change in industrial societies. American Political Science Review81(4) 1289-1319.

  • Iphofen R. (n.d.). Research ethics in ethnography/anthropology. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/ethics-guide-ethnog-anthrop_en.pdf

  • Het Parool. (2017). Verkiezingen: Traditionele partijen lieten problemen ontstaan verkiezingen help m’n stemwijzer zegt partij voor de dieren. February pp. 22-23.

  • HigginsP. (2010). Eradicating ecocide: Laws and governance to prevent the destruction of our planet. London, United Kingdom: Shepheard Walwyn Publishers Ltd.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • IsenhourC. (2010). On conflicted Swedish consumers, the effort to stop shopping and neoliberal environmental governance. Journal of Consumer Behavior9454-469.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • JerolmackC. (2003). Tracing the profile of animal rights supporters: A preliminary investigation. Society & Animals11(3) 245-263.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • KahnR. (2010). Critical pedagogy ecoliteracy and planetary crisis: The ecopedagogy movement. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

  • KellertS. R. & WilsonE. O. (1995). The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

  • KopninaH. (2012). Education for sustainable development (ESD): The turn away from ‘environment’ in environmental education? Environmental Education Research18(5) 699-717.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • KopninaH. (2014a). Environmental justice and biospheric egalitarianism: Reflecting on a normative-philosophical view of human-nature relationship. Earth Perspectives1(1) 8.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • KopninaH. (2014b). Animal representation in the Dutch media through environmental ethics. Environmental Processes1(3) 311-322.

  • KopninaH. (2014c). If a tree falls: Business students’ reflections on environmentalism. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development8(3) 311-329.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • KopninaH. (2015a). Revisiting the Lorax complex: Deep ecology and biophilia in cross-cultural perspective. Environmental Sociology43(4) 315-324.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • KopninaH. (2015b). If a tree falls and everybody hears the sound: Teaching deep ecology to business students. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development9(1) 101-116.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • KopninaH. & CherniakB. (2016). Neoliberalism and justice in education for sustainable development: A call for inclusive pluralism. Environmental Education Research22(6) 827-841.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • KopninaH. & GjerrisM. (2015). Are some animals more equal than others? Animal rights and deep ecology in environmental education. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education20109-123.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • KopninaH. & Shoreman-OuimetE. (Eds.). (2015). Sustainability: Key issues. New York, NY: Routledge.

  • NaessA. (1973). The shallow and the deep: Long-range ecology movement. A summary. Inquiry1695-99.

  • PerryD. A. N. & PerryG. A. D. (2008). Improving interactions between animal rights groups and conservation biologists. Conservation Biology22(1) 27-35.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SingerP. (1977). Animal liberation: A new ethics for our treatment of animals. New York, NY: Random House.

  • SpannringR. (2015). I and animal thou: Perspectives for educational theory. Society & Animals23613-629.

  • SykesK. (2016). Globalization and the animal turn: How international trade law contributes to global norms of animal protection. Transnational Environmental Law555-79.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ReganT. (1986). A case for animal rights. In M. W. Fox & L. D. Mickley (Eds.) Advances in animal welfare science (pp. 179-189). Washington, DC: The Humane Society of the United States.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rolston IIIH. (1983). Values gone wild. Inquiry26(2) 181-207.

  • VieiraP. (2016). Is overpopulation a growth? The pathology of permanent expansion. Oxford Literary Review38(1) 67-83.

  • WaldauP. (2013). Venturing beyond the tyranny of small differences: The animal protection movement, conservation, and environmental education. In M. Bekoff (Ed.) Ignoring nature no more. The case for compassionate conservation (pp. 27-43). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WashingtonH.TaylorB.KopninaH.CryerP. & PiccoloJ. J. (2017). Why ecocentrism is the key pathway to sustainability. Retrieved from https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/statement-ecocentrism/.

    • Export Citation
  • WilsonE. O. (1984). Biophilia: The human bond with other species. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • WUR (Wageningen University and Research Centre). (2009). Animal welfare in a global perspective.

Index Card
Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 369 369 13
Full Text Views 11 11 0
PDF Downloads 3 3 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0