Abstract
This chapter interrogates the view that animals fare better in white, Western dominant liberal culture than non-Western (invariably racialized) cultures. To counter the literature that assumes that multiculturalism is bad for animals, this chapter considers why multiculturalism is good for animals and argues that we should abandon the quick association between minoritized cultural practices and animal suffering (which is not meant to suggest that minoritized cultures are safe havens for animals). This chapter points to the misrepresentation of non-Western/colonized cultures as comparatively regressive for animals through a comparative analysis of one cultural arena: legal texts and reform. The analysis highlights the entrenched anthropocentrism of liberal legal systems as well as animal-friendly contemporary legal developments in the global South.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
Susan Moller Okin. “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? ‘When minority cultures win group rights, women lose out,’” Boston Review 22:5 (1997), 25; Susan Moller Okin, “Feminism and Multiculturalism: some tensions”, Ethics 108:4 (1998), 661–684.
- 2.
See various responses to Okin in Joshua Cohen, Sam Howard and Martha Nussbaum (eds.) Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1999).
- 3.
Paula Casal, “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Animals”, Journal of Political Philosophy 11.1 (2003), 1–22, 1.
- 4.
Okin in her second published iteration of her thoughts on the conflicting commitments between feminism and multiculturalism does say that “Sometimes more patriarchal minority cultures exist in the context of less patriarchal majority cultures; sometimes the reverse is true”. Okin, 678. Yet, despite this equanimity between majority and minority cultures expressing the possibility that majority cultures will sometimes be more patriarchal than minority ones, Okin proceeds to generalize that “(i)n many of the cultural groups that now form significant minorities in the United States, Canada, and Europe, families place girls under significantly greater constraints than their brothers”. Okin, 682. From her discussion that follows, Okin suggests that not only are these family expectations more constraining for daughters rather than sons in minority cultures, but that they are also more constraining than the gendered expectations the majority culture demands of them. Okin, 682–683.
- 5.
Monica Mookherjee, “Review Article: Feminism and Multiculturalism–Putting Okin and Shachar in Question”, Journal of Moral Philosophy 2:2 (2005), 237–241, 237.
- 6.
Notably, Casal’s examples of animal cruelty in her essay do not leave the cumulative impression that liberal cultures treat animals better than non-liberal ones. In setting the parameters of her argument, Casal does associate anti-cruelty legislation with Western societies and thus arguably suggests that cruelty against animals is not a concern elsewhere in the world. However, Casal quickly diffuses this reductive picture with her opening examples of Spanish traditions that brutalize animals. Casal, 1–2.
- 7.
Farah Godrej, Cosmopolitan Political Thought: Method, Practice, Discipline (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011); Ratna Kapur, “Human Rights in the 21st Century: Take a Walk on the Dark Side”, Sydney L Rev 28 (2006), 665–687.
- 8.
Sarah Song, Justice, Gender, and the Politics of Multiculturalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 2–4.
- 9.
Uma Narayan, Dislocating Cultures: Identities, Traditions, and Third-World Feminism (New York and London: Routledge, 1997); Leti Volpp, “Multiculturalism versus Feminism”, Columbia Law Review 101:5 (2001), 1181–1218; Glen Elder, Jody Emel, and Jennifer Wolch, “Race, Place, and the Bounds of Humanity”, Society and Animals 6:2 (1998), 183–202.
- 10.
Claire Jean Kim. Dangerous Crossings: Race, Species and Nature in a Multicultural Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).
- 11.
Volpp, id.; Maneesha Deckha, “Is Culture Taboo?” Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 16:1 (2004), 14–53.
- 12.
Trude Langvasbråten, “A Scandinavian Model? Gender Equality Discourses on Multiculturalism”, Social Politics 15:1 (2005), 32–52, 36.
- 13.
Maneesha Deckha, “Welfarist and Imperial: The Contributions of Anti-Cruelty Legislation to Civilizational Discourse” American Quarterly 65:3 (2013), 515–548, 523–525; Samera Esmeir, Juridical Humanity: A Colonial History (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 2013).
- 14.
Ibid.
- 15.
Deckha, “Welfarist and Imperial”, 522–523.
- 16.
Deckha, 525; Esmeir, 124–132.
- 17.
Narayan, 17–19; Rajeshwari Sunder Rajan, Real and Imagined Women: Gender, Culture and Postcolonialism (New York and London: Routledge, 1993).
- 18.
Chakravorty Spivak, “Can the Subaltern Speak?” in Patrick Williams and Laura Chrisman (eds.) Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory: A Reader (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester, 1993), 93.
- 19.
Dinesh Wadiwel, The War Against Animals (Lieden: Brill, Netherlands, 2015), 284.
- 20.
Rina Verma Williams writes that “(t)he British civilizing mission was constituted in fundamentally religious and gendered terms”. See Rina Verma Williams, “The More Things Change: Debating Gender and Religion in India’s Hindu Laws, 1920–2006”, Gender & History, 25:3 (2013), 711–724, 712. It may be that Williams is writing here through an anthropocentric lens such that has not considered whether or not the treatment of animals was as foundational to shaping colonial attitudes about racial inferiority. Whether the treatment of animals was as animating a discourse as the treatment of women in justifying imperial ambitions is an open question.
- 21.
Wadiwel, 33–36.
- 22.
Ibid., 3.
- 23.
Ibid., 20–21.
- 24.
Ibid., 257; Thomas J. Catlaw and Thomas M. Holland, “Regarding the Animal: On Biopolitics and the Limits of Humanism in Public Administration”, Administrative Theory & Praxis 34:1 (2012), 85–112, 90–91.
- 25.
Anna Grear, “Challenging Corporate ‘Humanity’: Legal Disembodiment, Embodiment and Human Rights”, Human Rights Law Review 7:3 (2007), 511–543, 522–523.
- 26.
Maneesha Deckha, “Vulnerability, Equality, Animals”, Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 27:1 (2015), 47–70, 51.
- 27.
Cynthia Willett, Interspecies Ethics (New York: Columbia University Press, 2014), 3–4.
- 28.
Kelly Oliver, Earth Ethics: Philosophy after the Apollo Missions (New York: Columbia University Press, 2015).
- 29.
Ibid.
- 30.
Ratna Kapur has argued that the exclusionary dynamics of liberalism are inherent to it and cannot be revised and remedied. See Kapur, 665–687.
- 31.
Anna Grear, “Deconstructing Anthropos: A Critical Legal Reflection on ‘Anthropocentric’ Law and Anthropocene ‘Humanity’”, Law and Critique 26:3 (2015), 225–249, 231–232.
- 32.
Marie Fox, “Re-thinking Kinship: Law’s Construction of the Animal Body”, Current Legal Problems 57:1 (2004), 469–493, 477; Marie Fox, “Reconfiguring the animal/human boundary: The impact of xenotechnologies”, Liverpool Law Review 26:2: 149–167, 150.
- 33.
Raymond A. Rogers and Christopher J.A. Wilkinson, “Policies of Extinction: The Life and Death of Canada’s Endangered Species Legislation”, Policy Studies Journal, 28:1 (2000), 190–205, 193; Deckha, “Welfarist and Imperial”, id. For a discussion of how anti-cruelty laws also reveal a pattern of targeting minoritized classed and racialized practices, see Deckha, 524–530.
- 34.
Gary Francione, Animals, Property and the Law (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995).
- 35.
Matthew Calarco, “Animal Studies”. The Year’s Work in Critical and Cultural Theory 23 (2015) 20–40, 39; Greta Gaard, “Tools for a Cross-Cultural Feminist Ethics: Exploring Ethical Contexts and Contents in the Makah Whale Hunt”. Hypatia 16:1 (2001): 1–26; Lori Gruen, Ethics and animals: an introduction (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011).
- 36.
Angela P. Harris, “Should People of Color Support Animal Rights?,” Journal of Animal Law, 5 (2009), 15–32, 28.
- 37.
Bikhu Parekh , “Gandhi’s Concept of Ahimsā”, Alternatives XIII (1988), 195–217, 198–199.
- 38.
E. Szűcs et al., “Animal Welfare in Different Human Cultures, Traditions and Religious Faiths”, Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 25:11 (2012), 1499–1506; Lisa Kemmerer, “Multiculturalism, Indian philosophy, and conflicts over cuisine” in Luís Cordeiro Rodrigues and Marko Simendic (eds.) Comparative Philosophical Perspectives on Multiculturalism: Historical, Western, Eastern and African Approaches (Oxon: Routledge, 2016), 133–152. Kemmerer notes that other major religious traditions also house teachings similar to ahimsa towards animals that require abstinence from flesh consumption but still singles Indian culture and philosophy out in its expression of non-violence towards animals in dietary practice among “traditional Hindus”. Id at 139. Kemmerer acknowledges that following ahimsa has not yet prompted widespread adoption of a vegan diet in India as it has a vegetarian one. She attributes this to the reverence of cows and the milk they produce combined with an ignorance of the current brutalities of the dairy industry. Ibid., 142–145.
- 39.
David Nibert, Animal Oppression & Human Violence: Domesecration, Capitalism, and Global Conflict (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013).
- 40.
Francione, ibid.
- 41.
Doubtless, the reasons for this disconnect are complex, but one reason is the spread of imperial laws such as the British common law that promoted capitalist accumulation of natural resources, including animals, in former colonies. See Nibert, ibid.
- 42.
I omit here discussion of the most obvious example—cows—given that the special protection cows enjoy in the Indian Constitution, flowing from their religious standing in Hinduism as sacred, is already well treated. For a comparative constitutional treatment see Daphne Barak-Erez, “Symbolic Constitutionalism: On Sacred Cows and Abonimable Pigs”, Law, Culture & the Humanities 6/3 (2010): 420–435.
- 43.
The Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations, “India Becomes Fourth Country to Ban Captive Dolphin Shows”, http://www.fiapo.org/view_news.php?viewid=12612 (Accessed).
- 44.
Ibid.
- 45.
Ibid.
- 46.
The Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations, “Victory! MoEF says NO to Dolphinariums in India”, http://fiapo.org/view_news.php?viewid=12588 (Accessed); Deutsche Welle, “Dolphins gain unprecedented protection in India”, http://www.dw.com/en/dolphins-gain-unprecedented-protection-in-india/a-16834519 (Accessed).
- 47.
Deutsche Welle, ibid.
- 48.
The Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations, Campaign Report 2012–2013: Campaign To Prohibit The Establishment of Dolphinaria and Keeping of Cetaceans in Captivity in India, http://www.fiapo.org/downloads/dolphincampaigncompletionreport.pdf (not paginated).
- 49.
Ibid.
- 50.
Brigitte Nicole Fielder, “Animal Humanism: Race, Species, and Affective Kinship in Nineteenth-Century Abolitionism”, American Quarterly 65:3 (2013), 487–514, 488–489; Clare Rasmussen, “Pleasure, Pain, and place: ag-gag, crush videos, and animal bodies on display” in K. Gillespie and R. Collard (eds.), Critical Animal Geographies: Politics, intersections, and hierarchies in a multispecies world (Oxon: Routledge, 2015), 54–70, 61; Maneesha Deckha, “Humanizing the Nonhuman: A Legitimate Way for Animals to Escape Juridical Property Status?” forthcoming in John Sorenson and Atsuko Matsuoka (eds.), Critical Animal Studies (Rowman & Littlefield, 2017).
- 51.
Krithika Srinivasan, “The biopolitics of animal being and welfare: dog control and care in the UK and India”, Transactions 38:1 (2016), 106–119.
- 52.
The Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, SO 1256(E).
- 53.
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (59 of 1960).
- 54.
Srinivasan, 111.
- 55.
ABC Rules, s. 3(3) and 13.
- 56.
Srinivasan, 110.
- 57.
Ibid.
- 58.
Ibid.
- 59.
Ibid (emphasis in original).
- 60.
Ibid.
- 61.
Ibid., 111.
- 62.
Ibid., 109, 111. For a critical appraisal of recent UK efforts to control dogs that confirms Srinivasan’s point see Erika Cudworth, “Killing animals: sociology, species relations and institutionalized violence”, Sociological Review 63.1 (2015), 1–18, 11.
- 63.
Ibid., 113.
- 64.
Rebekah Fox, “Animal behaviours, post-human lives: everyday negotiations of the animal–human divide in pet-keeping”, Social & Geography, 7:4 (2006), 525–537, 526.
- 65.
Srinivasan, 114.
- 66.
Himani Banerji, The Dark Side of the Nation: Essays on Multiculturalism, Nationalism and Gender (Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2000).
- 67.
Will Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship—A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1995); Bikhu Parekh , Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory (Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005). There are other criticisms of critical multiculturalist theory (i.e. theories of multiculturalism that transcend tokenistic understandings of culture and) that go beyond the concern that traditional multiculturalism glosses over systemic racism and colonialism. Space constrains me from detailing these other criticisms.
- 68.
Rasmussen, 61.
- 69.
Wendy Brown, Manhood and Politics: A Feminist Reading of Political Theory (Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 1988), 55. See also Cathryn Bailey, “We Are What We Eat: Feminist Vegetarianism and the Reproduction of Racial Identity”, Hypatia 22:2 (2007): 39–59, 42–44.
- 70.
Kay Anderson, “The Beast Within: Race, Humanity, and Animality”, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 18:3 (2000), 301–320; Fielder, 490–491.While exhibiting its own particular trajectory, race is not unique in its species-dependent formation. As Colleen Glenney Boggs writes: “…one thing ‘interlocking oppressions’ such as racism, sexism, and homophobia have in common is that their mechanisms of shame and violence revolve around literal and figurative animals. The abjection of animals is the sine qua non of these forms of domination (footnotes and citations omitted).” Colleen Glenney Boggs, “American Bestiality: Sex, Animals, and the Construction of Subjectivity”, Cultural Critique 76 (2010), 98–125, 99. Boggs cite the generative work of feminist care tradition scholars Carol Adams and Josephine Donovan in this regard. See Carol J. Adams and Josephine Donovan (eds.), Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations (Durham: Duke University Press, 1995), 9.
- 71.
Kim, 24–26.
- 72.
Val Plumwood, Environmental Culture: The sociolegal crisis of reason (New York: Routledge, 2002), 19–21.
- 73.
Ibid., 26; Elder et al., 185–190.
- 74.
Maneesha Deckha, “The Subhuman as a Cultural Agent of Violence”, Journal of Critical Animal Studies 8:3 (2010), 28–51.
- 75.
Corey Lee Wrenn, “An Analysis of Diversity in Nonhuman Animal Rights Media”, Journal of Agricultural Environmental Ethics 29 (2016), 143–165, 150.
- 76.
Ibid., 144; Corey Lee Wrenn and Megan Lutz, “White Women Wanted? An Analysis of Gender Diversity in Social Justice Magazines”, Societies 6:12 (2016), 1–18, 1–2.
- 77.
Harris, 15, 4.
- 78.
Will Kymlicka and Sue Donaldson, “Animal Rights, Multiculturalism, and the Left”, Journal of Social Philosophy 45:1 (2014), 116–135, 122. Kymlicka and Donaldson suggest that white critical theorists are fearful of the charge of cultural imperialism and racial privilege that would materialize if they embraced the animal rights critique. Kymlicka and Donaldson proceed to dispel the weakness of the criticism that promoting the tenets of animal rights is necessarily culturally imperialist or racially biased. Ibid., 120–124. I have also discussed why such a charge in relation to feminist scholarship that seeks to oppose violence and domination against animals is similarly misguided. See Maneesha Deckha, “Toward A Postcolonial Posthumanist Feminist Theory: Centralizing Race and Culture in Feminist Work on Nonhuman Animals”, Hypatia 27:3 (2012), 527–545, 535. Kymlicka and Donaldson note other historical reasons that the Left has retained an anthropocentric focus (for example, “Marxian conceptions of the human good”) but argue that these “long-standing reasons for the Left’s indifference” have since been discredited by the Left’s own critiques. Ibid., 123. In their view, “(t)he one remaining politically legitimate excuse for ignoring animals is the claim that animal advocacy somehow enacts racial bias and cultural imperialism, and so this has become a preferred rationalization for anyone on the Left who wishes to ignore the issue”. Ibid.
- 79.
Wrenn and Lutz, 2 (footnotes and citations omitted).
- 80.
As Wrenn and Lutz discuss, at least one study has demonstrated that the media strategies that many organizations routinely use that sexually objectify (white) women deter women from joining. Gender also operates as a block to garnering wider social acceptance given that caring for animals is associated with feminized values and not contemporary masculinity; men thus are difficult to recruit in large numbers. Ibid., 2; Wrenn, 149.
- 81.
William David Hart, “Slaves, Fetuses, and Animals: Race and Ethical Rhetoric”, Journal of Religious Ethics 42:4 (2014), 661–690.
- 82.
Marjorie’s Spiegel’s Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery (Mirror Books, 1996). Hart also addresses how both sides of the American abortion rights movement use the rhetoric of slavery to make their position in relation to the foetus intelligible. Hart, 667–673.
- 83.
Ibid., 684.
- 84.
Ibid. 673–684.
- 85.
Ibid. 684–685.
- 86.
Hart’s concern about reductive comparisons and parallels between racism and speciesism is, of course, important. But his objections to Spiegel’s analysis on several grounds are overdrawn. Recuperating Speigel’s work from Hart’s devastating critique requires more space than I have here. It is interesting to note, however, that celebrated Black female novelist and social commentator, Alice Walker, who herself has written prose suggesting close parallels between African American slavery and the contemporary treatment of animals. See Alice Walker, Alice Walker Banned (San Francisco: Aunt Lute, 1996) wrote a forward to Speigel’s commentary. Hart specifically states “(t)he fact that Alice Walker wrote the preface to Spiegel’s book does not mitigate my negative judgment”. Hart, 684.
- 87.
Hart, 681–682.
- 88.
Ibid., at 682.
- 89.
Ibid.
- 90.
Hart’s own investment in maintaining a sharp moral divide between humans and animals informs this inability to accept the parallel in the end. See his discussion, ibid., 678–680.
- 91.
Ibid., 682.
- 92.
Ibid., 684.
- 93.
Ibid.
- 94.
Kim, p. 35; Harris, 22–24; Megan H. Glick, “Animal Instincts: Race, Criminality, and the Reversal of the ‘Human’”, American Quarterly 65:3 (2013), 639–659, 641–642.
- 95.
Bailey, 42–43; Richard Twine, “Intersectional disgust? Animals and (eco)feminism”, Feminism & Psychology, 20:3 (2010), 397–406, 398–399.
- 96.
Lynda Birke and Luciana Parisi, “Animals, Becoming” in H.P. Steeves (ed.) Animal Others: On Ethics, Ontology, and Animal Life (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999), 55–74, 69 as cited in Sundhya Walther, “Fables of the Tiger Economy: Species and Subalternity in Aravind Adiga’s The White Tiger”, Modern Fiction Studies 60:3 (2014), 579–598, 592; Anastasia Yarborough, in K. Gillespie and R. Collard (eds.), Critical Animal Geographies: Politics, intersections, and hierarchies in a multispecies world (Oxon: Routledge, 2015), 108–126, 122.
- 97.
Ibid.
- 98.
Harris, 17.
- 99.
Ibid., 31–32.
- 100.
Marc Bekoff, The Emotional Lives of Animals: A Leading Scientist Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and Empathy and Why They Matter (Novato, California: New World Library, 2007). I am grateful to Lauren Corman for sharing her insights and syllabus on animal cultures with me.
- 101.
Countless authors across a range of critical theories have discussed the foundational nature/culture divide in Western epistemologies that positions animals in the natural realm.
- 102.
Kelly Oliver, Witnessing: Beyond Recognition (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001).
Bibliography
Adams, C.J., and J. Donovan (eds.). 1995. Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations. Durham: Duke University Press.
Anderson, K. 2000. The Beast Within: Race, Humanity, and Animality. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 18 (3): 301–320.
Bailey, C. 2007. We Are What We Eat: Feminist Vegetarianism and the Reproduction of Racial Identity. Hypatia 22 (2): 39–59.
Banerji, H. 2000. The Dark Side of the Nation: Essays on Multiculturalism, Nationalism and Gender. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Bekoff, M. 2007. The Emotional Lives of Animals: A Leading Scientist Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and Empathy and Why They Matter. Novato, CA: New World Library.
Birke, L., and L. Parisi. 1999. Animals, Becoming. In Animal Others: On Ethics, Ontology, and Animal Life, ed. H.P. Steeves. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Boggs, C.G. 2010. American Bestiality: Sex, Animals, and the Construction of Subjectivity. Cultural Critique 76: 98–125.
Brown, W. 1988. Manhood and Politics: A Feminist Reading of Political Theory. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.
Calarco, M. 2015. Animal Studies. The Year’s Work in Critical and Cultural Theory 23: 20–40.
Casal, P. 2003. Is Multiculturalism Bad for Animals. Journal of Political Philosophy 11 (1): 1–22.
Catlaw, T.J., and T.M. Holland. 2012. Regarding the Animal: On Biopolitics and the Limits of Humanism in Public Administration. Administrative Theory and Praxis 34 (1): 85–112.
Cohen, J., M. Howard, and M.C. Nussbaum. 1999. Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cudworth, E. 2015. Killing Animals: Sociology, Species Relations and Institutionalized Violence. Sociological Review 63 (1): 1–18.
Deckha, M. 2004. Is Culture Taboo? Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 16 (1): 14–53.
Deckha, M. 2010. The Subhuman as a Cultural Agent of Violence. Journal of Critical Animal Studies 8 (3): 28–51. Available at http://www.criticalanimalstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/JCAS-Special-Issue-Women-of-Color-November-FINAL-2010.pdf (Accessed).
Deckha, M. 2012. Toward a Postcolonial Posthumanist Feminist Theory: Centralizing Race and Culture in Feminist Work on Nonhuman Animals. Hypatia 27 (3): 527–545.
Deckha, M. 2013. Welfarist and Imperial: The Contributions of Anti-cruelty Legislation to Civilizational Discourse. American Quarterly 65 (3): 515–548.
Deckha, M. 2015. Vulnerability, Equality, Animals. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 27 (1): 47–70.
Deckha, M. forthcoming 2017. Humanizing the Nonhuman: A Legitimate Way for Animals to Escape Juridical Property Status? In Critical Animal Studies, ed. J. Sorenson and A. Matsuoka. Toronto: Rowman & Littlefield.
Deutsche Welle. 2013. Dolphins Gain Unprecedented Protection in India. http://www.dw.com/en/dolphins-gain-unprecedented-protection-in-india/a-16834519 (Accessed).
Elder, G., J. Emel, and J. Wolch. 1998. Race, Place, and the Bounds of Humanity. Society and Animals 6 (2): 183–202.
Esmeir, S. 2013. Juridical Humanity: A Colonial History. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations. 2013a. Campaign Report 2012–2013: Campaign to Prohibit the Establishment of Dolphinaria and Keeping of Cetaceans in Captivity in India. http://www.fiapo.org/downloads/dolphincampaigncompletionreport.pdf. Not paginated. Retrieved 2 Sept 2016.
Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations. 2013b. India Becomes Fourth Country to Ban Captive Dolphin Shows. http://www.fiapo.org/view_news.php?viewid=12612. Retrieved 2 Sept 2016.
Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations. 2013c. Victory! MoEF Says NO to Dolphinariums in India. http://fiapo.org/view_news.php?viewid=12588. Retrieved 2 Sept 2016.
Fielder, B.N. 2013. Animal Humanism: Race, Species, and Affective Kinship in Nineteenth-Century Abolitionism. American Quarterly 65 (3): 487–514.
Fox, M. 2004. Re-thinking Kinship: Law’s Construction of the Animal Body. Current Legal Problems 57 (1): 469–493.
Fox, M. 2005. Reconfiguring the Animal/Human Boundary: The Impact of Xenotechnologies. Liverpool Law Review 26 (2): 149–167.
Fox, R. 2006. Animal Behaviours, Post-Human Lives: Everyday Negotiations of the Animal–Human Divide in Pet-Keeping. Social & Geography 7 (4): 525–537.
Francione, G. 1995. Animals, Property and the Law. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Gaard, G. 2001. Tools for a Cross-Cultural Feminist Ethics: Exploring Ethical Contexts and Contents in the Makah Whale Hunt. Hypatia 16 (1): 1–26.
Glick, M.H. 2013. Animal Instincts: Race, Criminality, and the Reversal of the ‘Human’. American Quarterly 65 (3): 639–659.
Godrej, F. 2011. Cosmopolitan Political Thought: Method, Discipline, Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grear, A. 2007. Challenging Corporate ‘Humanity’: Legal Disembodiment, Embodiment and Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review 7 (3): 511–543.
Grear, A. 2015. Deconstructing Anthropos: A Critical Legal Reflection on ‘Anthropocentric’ Law and Anthropocene ‘Humanity’. Law and Critique 26 (3): 225–249.
Gruen, L. 2011. Ethics and Animals: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Harper, B.A. 2013. Doing Veganism Differently: Racialized Trauma and the Personal Journey Towards Vegan Healing. In Doing Nutrition Differently, ed. J. Hayes-Conroy and A. Hayes-Conroy, 133–150. London: Ashgate Press.
Harris, A.P. 2009. Should People of Color Support Animal Rights? Journal of Animal Law 5 (15): 15–32.
Hart, W.D. 2014. Slaves, Fetuses, and Animals: Race and Ethical Rhetoric. Journal of Religious Ethics 42 (4): 661–690.
Kapur, R. 2006. Human Rights in the 21st Century: Take a Walk on the Dark Side. Sydney Law Review 28: 665–687.
Kemmerer, L. 2016. Multiculturalism, Indian Philosophy, and Conflicts Over Cuisine. In Philosophical Perspectives on Multiculturalism: Historical, Western, Eastern and African Approaches, ed. Luís Cordeiro-Rodrigues, and Marko Simendic, 133–152. Oxon: Routledge.
Kim, C.J. 2007. Multiculturalism Goes Imperial. Du Bois Review 4 (1): 233–249.
Kim, C.J. 2015. Dangerous Crossings: Race Species and Nature in a Multicultural Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kymlicka, W. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship—A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kymlicka, W., and S. Donaldson. 2014. Animal Rights, Multiculturalism, and the Left. Journal of Social Philosophy 45 (1): 116–135.
Langvasbråten, T. 2008. A Scandinavian Model? Gender Equality Discourses on Multiculturalism. Social Politics 15 (1): 32–52.
Mookherjee, M. 2005. Review Article: Feminism and Multiculturalism-Putting Okin and Shachar in Question. Journal of Moral Philosophy 2 (2): 237–241.
Narayan, U. 1997. Dislocating Cultures—Identities, Traditions, Third-World Feminism. New York: Routledge.
Nibert, D. 2013. Animal Oppression & Human Violence: Domesecration, Capitalism, and Global Conflict. New York: Columbia University Press.
Okin, S.M. 1997. Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? When Minority Cultures Win Group Rights, Women Lose Out. Boston Review 22 (5): 25.
Okin, S.M. 1998. Feminism and Multiculturalism: Some Tensions. Ethics 108 (4): 661–684.
Oliver, K. 2001. Witnessing: Beyond Recognition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Oliver, K. 2015. Earth Ethics: Philosophy After the Apollo Missions. New York: Columbia University Press.
Parekh, B. 2005. Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Plumwood, V. 2002. Environmental Culture: The Sociolegal Crisis of Reason. New York: Routledge.
Rasmussen, C. 2015. Pleasure, Pain, and Place: Ag-Gag, Crush Videos, and Animal Bodies on Display. In Critical Animal Geographies: Politics, Intersections, and Hierarchies in a Multispecies World, ed. K. Gillespie and R. Collard. Oxon: Routledge.
Rogers, R.A., and C.J.A. Wilkinson. 2000. Policies of Extinction: The Life and Death of Canada’s Endangered Species Legislation. Policy Studies Journal 28 (1): 190–205.
Song, S. 2007. Justice, Gender, and the Politics of Multiculturalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spiegel, Marjorie. 1996. Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery. New York: Mirror Books.
Spivak, G.C. 1993. Can the Subaltern Speak? In Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory: A Reader, ed. P. Williams and L. Chrisman. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester.
Srinivasan, K. 2016. The Biopolitics of Animal Being and Welfare: Dog Control and Care in the UK and India. Transactions 38 (1): 106–119.
Sunder Rajan, R. 1993. Real and Imagined Women: Gender, Culture and Postcolonialism. New York and London: Routledge.
Szűcs, E., et al. 2012. Animal Welfare in Different Human Cultures, Traditions and Religious Faiths. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 25 (11): 1499–1506.
Twine, R. 2010. Intersectional Disgust? Animals and (Eco)Feminism. Feminism & Psychology 20 (3): 397–406.
Volpp, L. 2001. Multiculturalism Against Feminism. Columbia Law Review 101 (5): 1181–1218.
Wadiwel, D. 2015. The War Against Animals. Lieden: Brill.
Williams, R.V. 2013. The More Things Change: Debating Gender and Religion in India’s Hindu Laws, 1920–2006. Gender & History 25 (3): 711–724.
Wrenn, C.L. 2016. An Analysis of Diversity in Nonhuman Animal Rights Media. Journal of Agricultural Environmental Ethics 29: 143–165.
Wrenn, C.L., and M. Lutz. 2016. White Women Wanted? An Analysis of Gender Diversity in Social Justice Magazines. Societies 6 (12): 1–18.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Deckha, M. (2017). Is Multiculturalism Good for Animals?. In: Cordeiro-Rodrigues, L., Mitchell, L. (eds) Animals, Race, and Multiculturalism . The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66568-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66568-9_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66567-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-66568-9
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)