On Women and Beasts: Human-Animal Relationships in Sixteenth-Century Thought

Anna Becker

doi:10.1007/978-3-662-60756-5_3

Abstract

AbstractThe chapter traces how early modern writers of political theory, often in their comments on Aristotle, viewed the relationships between some animals and humans, notably in the household. Remarkably, not all authors drew a sharp contrast between the human male on the one side, and disenfranchised women, slaves, and animals, on the other. Some writers did not view humans as completely alienated from their animal nature. Thus, early modern writers’ contemplation of the human animal and the fluidity between nature and culture might inspire current reflection on animal welfare and rights.

Highlights

The chapter traces how early modern writers of political theory, often in their comments on Aristotle, viewed the relationships between some animals and humans, notably in the household
The chapter traces how some early modern thinkers defined the relationship of human beings to animals generally, and, more how they saw the relationship of women, slaves, and animals in the human household
What was human was characterised by distinguishing it from the animal, but the animal was seen as part of the very human household

Summary

Introduction

The chapter traces how early modern writers of political theory, often in their comments on Aristotle, viewed the relationships between some animals and humans, notably in the household. We might think that ‘women and slaves, in being denied full humanity, were necessarily partaking in animal nature’.1 This chapter questions the view that early modern philosophers worked with a simple analogy of women and beasts.

Results

Conclusion