Domiciled Political Thought

In April 2026, Serrin Routledge-Prior gave a highly informative and engaging talk exploring the joint subjugation women and other animals in society, and the absence of women thinkers the history of political thought, including contemporary political thought on animals. Her thought-provoking presentation was part of a larger project she is working on in which she aims to “think with” historical and contemporary women theorists, especially those whose reflections on the status of women in society are directly applicable to the status of animals in society.

Serrin Routledge-Prior giving a talk for VAS in April 2026 titled “Confined then in Cages like the Feathered Race”: Astell, Wollstonecraft, and the Politics of Domestication

Focusing specifically on the work of 18^th-century feminists, Mary Astell (1666-1731) and Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797), Routledge-Prior demonstrated how both women (especially “wives”) and other animals have traditionally been “domiciled” by society, conditioned to obey, to acquiesce, to be another’s object, to be kept hidden or put on display for others’ amusement or benefit, to be subject to another’s control. She aptly pointed out that pet keeping today is, for all intents and purposes, a political institution, much like marriage in the early modern period. In Astell and Wollstonecraft’s time, she explained, women were the property of their husbands who, behind closed doors, could do what they wanted to and with them with impunity. The law intervened only in cases of extreme cruelty, but otherwise husbands had free reign. Despite the lessons we have learned regarding the injustice intrinsic to this arrangement, the same dynamic applies between “pet-owner” and “pet” today. By pointing out the structural similarities between the ‘domestication’ of women/wives and pets, Routledge-Prior hammered home just how antiquated and in need of reform our current system is.

In her critique of the canon, Routledge-Prior noted despite the tremendous contribution Astell, Wollstonecraft, and other women thinkers have made to political thought, they are still by and large excluded from the canon of political theory, including political animal theory. The thinkers who garner the most attention in both areas include the male giants, John Rawls and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and, as Routledge-Prior remarked not without a hint of sarcasm, his “famous footnote” (concerning animal suffering).

Underscoring the absurdity and indefensibility of the lack of recognition of women thinkers, Routledge-Prior reminds us that Christine de Pizan (1364-1430) gave advice to princes and yet Machiavelli (1469-1527), born over one hundred years later, is cited as the first modern political thinker. More recent political thinkers left out of the discussion, according to Routledge-Prior, include Carole Pateman, Susan Moller Okin, and Stacy Clifford Simplican, among others.

Having highlighted the lacuna in the canon, Routledge-Prior shifts her focus to the alternative. As her main research question, she asks, “What would the history of political thought look like if we took the interests and agency of animals seriously?” This is pressing question and certainly deserves the attention she gives it. As a case study, Routledge-Prior delves into the work of the Astell and Wollstonecraft. Astell was a conservative thinker who did not challenge the institution of marriage or indeed women’s subjugation within in it per se. Nevertheless, she made other meaningful interventions. She was an interlocutor of John Locke (1632-1704) and wrote a systematic critique of his social contract theory and that of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). She also wrote A Serious Proposal to the Ladies for their Advancement of their True and Greatest Interest (1694). Wollstonecraft, a radical thinker, built a successful career as a writer, translator, and critic. She wrote the first travelogue (about Scandinavia) and went to Paris during the Terror (1792) to be part of the Revolution, but is perhaps most well-known for her feminist treaty, A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1791). While this this text has gotten quite a lot of attention, it is an exception that cannot by itself fill the huge gap that remains.

Serrin Routledge-Prior discusses some of Astell's thoughts on animals

 Routledge-Prior does not have any illusions about the extent of the contribution to political animal theory Astell and Wollstonecraft offer. She explained that both thinkers wrote about animals in scattered ways and often as foils or comparative references for humans. For her part, Astell claimed that animals are not rational, whereas humans, including women, were rational, but not allowed to develop their rational faculties, rendering them “like animals.” Wollstonecraft made a similar claim but focused on the problem of women being conditioned to be silly and petty, to undermine themselves by fixating on a search for a husband, which was presented as their only opportunity for security or advancement in life. Going further than Astell, Wollstonecraft acknowledged that animals experience hope and fear, love and hate, and other emotions, and she openly condemned cruelty against animals.

While Routledge-Prior admits that their contributions to political animal theory may not in themselves be especially notable, she does insist, rightly I think, that Astell and Wollstonecraft’s feminist critiques might help to draw our attention to the injustices faced by animals in domestic settings—in other words, pets.

To defend this claim, Routledge-Prior offered a compelling list of similarities. Like early modern wives, animals are presented as look happy, as enjoying the performance of emotional labour, and as safe and protected. Like early modern (and modern) wives, animals are given tranquilizers and other medications to prevent behaviours resulting from confinement, boredom, denial of autonomy, routine activity without variation, frustration of needs, and so on. It is well known that pets are experiencing depression and anxiety, noise sensitivity, and other behavioural issues that are by and large treated with medication instead of a change in circumstances (e.g. more time to run outside off leash, more autonomy in decision-making, etc.). The solutions offered to wives were superficial and medicalized. Instead of ensuring that women can develop their minds, independence, and participate in public life, women were further silenced and debilitated by these “treatments.” The “solutions: offered to animals to this day are similarly deficient and lead to yet more dependence and helplessness. They also place the onus on the wife or animal to transform, to adapt to the oppressive system rather than dismantling it. Not mincing words, Routledge-Prior remarked: “It’s easier to give a dog an antidepressant than to build infrastructures that enable animal agency.” Indeed.

Serrin Routledge-Prior discusses the significance of these women's thoughts for thinking about animals.

What would a more meaningful solution for animals look like, Routledge-Prior asks? It goes without saying that we must abolish animals’ property status. No meaningful change can occur if animals are still ownable “things” under the law. But this is not sufficient in and of itself and it certainly does not mean, Routledge-Prior was quick to emphasize, that we should abolish multispecies families. Instead, she insists that we have to reimagine what multispecies families and communities might look like with animals’ property status abolished. This also means surrendering our claim to absolute control which, in turn, includes recognizing that if given the choice some animals may wish to remain with to live with human while others may not. To live up to our word for caring about the wellbeing of other animals, it is incumbent upon us to create an infrastructure that enables their agency and flourishing in both cases.

To add to Routledge-Prior’s convincing argument, we might say that animals who choose to stay with their humans should not be “domiciled,” forced into a state of helpless dependence, and governed paternalistically, but should be recognized as agential beings with the right to pursue their own wants, desires, and needs within appropriate and fair limits, just like humans. Animals who choose to live independently and outside of the home should be supported by the community and state with veterinary services, food, and shelter provided and other measures in place (such as safe areas to roam), and opportunities to socialize and participate actively in multispecies life.

Routledge-Prior ended her illuminating talk with a call to action and a “set of provocations”. Learn from female political theorists! Teach female political theories! Read political theory as if it includes animals! Don’t rely on Bentham! There are other choices available!

For people peer reviewing papers, including other animals should be the default not the exception! Let us take up her call and in so doing enrich political (animal) theory and deepen our understanding of what we have done wrong and what exciting possibilities await.