








































Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2017; 8(1): 21-32 

21 

Original Article 

 

Animal Citizenship, Phenomenology, and Ontology: Some reflections on 

Donaldson’s & Kymlicka’s Zoopolis 

 

Iván Ortega Rodríguez 

Universidad Pontificia Comillas, Madrid, Spain 

Email: iortega@comillas.edu, ivan.ortega79@gmail.com 

 

Abstract: This paper is a dialogue with Sue Donaldson’s and Will Kymlicka’s book 

Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights. My thesis is that, despite the authors’ 

reticence, considerations in first philosophy regarding humans and nonhumans are relevant to 

their goal of building a more comprehensive animal rights philosophy. What is more, I 

believe that first philosophy actually can be of help for their proposal, specifically in the form 

of phenomenology and phenomenological ontology. For this purpose, I first summarize the 

basic outline of Zoopolis’s position and indicate some questions that arise from a strictly 

internal consideration of its theses. And secondly, I introduce some aspects in which 

phenomenological research would be relevant, along with some particular and provisional 

analyses carried out from the standpoint of a phenomenologically-based ontology. Especially, 

there is a theme that stands out: the intersubjective realms between humans and nonhumans. 

 

Key Words: Animal Rights, Animal Philosophy, Phenomenology, ontology Bioethics, 

Ecology. 

 

Introduction: Animal philosophy received a decisive impulse with Sue Donaldson’s and 

Will Kymlicka’s book Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights
1

. It offered a 

comprehensive theory that, to a great extent, creates a new theoretical framework for thinking 

the moral status of nonhuman animals. In fact, it is not an understatement to say that Zoopolis 

is already a reference so unavoidable as Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation. It has acquired one 

of the greatest relevance statuses: that of being an inevitable part of the discussion. 

 

This contribution wants to engage in this now inescapable dialogue with Zoopolis. My 

starting position is that of a basic acceptance of its positions, as well as an acknowledgment 

of Donaldson’s and Kymlicka’s achievement. Nonetheless, as the authors know very well, 

the greatest act of philosophical admiration consists in engaging a dialogue that does not shy 

away from possible suggestions or corrections. In this regard, I want to defend the relevance 

of first philosophy, in the manner of phenomenological analysis and phenomenology-based 

ontology. Contrary to the authors’ suspicions, I defend that this discussion does not 

necessarily undermine the case for animal rights but may even strengthen it. 

 

A brief overview of Zoopolis: The first step in my argument is an assessment of Zoopolis’ 

great theses. The main argument of Zoopolis has a clear structure: the quality of selfhood and 

self-interest, unquestionably present in nonhuman animals, justifies their deserving the same 

mailto:iortega@comillas.edu
mailto:ivan.ortega79@gmail.com


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2017; 8(1): 21-32 

22 

moral status as humans. The combination of this fundamental thesis with a consideration of 

the different possible relationships between nonhuman and human animals results in three 

further theses concerning the moral status of nonhumans, specifically the political status they 

deserve as part of the same planet and thus in some form of interrelation with us. For the 

authors, these statuses are citizenship for domestic animals, sovereignty for wild animals, and 

“denizenship” for “liminal” animals. 

 

Thus, firstly, domesticated animals share our same space, are dependent on us and can 

interact even to the point of contributing to the institutional shaping of our community. 

Consequently, Zoopolis states that they must be considered as full citizens. 

 

Secondly, wild animals live in their own habitats and their behaviour unmistakably indicates 

that their self-interest includes not entering into contact with humans and keeping their 

autonomy in the areas where they have for a long time developed their lives (or also the 

routes along which they have migrated and those realms where they have seasonally dwelt 

since time immemorial). Consequently, they must be taken as sovereign inhabitants rightfully 

living in their territories. 

 

Thirdly, there is another category of animals who are neither domestic nor wild, and who 

Zoopolis refers to as “liminal”, namely those who are not domesticated but live in our midst. 

They live among us for a variety of motives: either because their habitats have been enclosed 

by human settlements, or because of the introduction of exotic species, either because they 

are former domesticated animals who have become feral or their descendants, or also because 

they are niche specialists, opportunistic animals and synanthropic species, whose existence is 

more narrowly dependent on us. In all cases, they have in common that they are dependent on 

humans in a non-specific way: they need human beings to get food or shelter but are not 

dependent on any individual human being —at least qua species. For these animals, 

Donaldson and Kymlicka consider that a new category has to be created: “denizenship”
2
. 

With this term they refer to those inhabitants who live in the same space as us but cannot or 

have no interest in being part of our political community. They cannot have the same rights 

and duties as citizens, especially those referring to participation in the communal life, but 

they still have rights of justice, especially concerning their physical integrity and their right to 

develop their lives. Consequently, for example, not any solution for human-nonhuman 

conflicts is acceptable, not even in the case of our animal denizens. In this regard, 

Donaldson’s and Kymlicka's book is full of beautiful examples of solving coexistence 

problems without recurring to extermination procedures, which are not only immoral but also 

largely inefficient. 

 

Concentrating now on their defence of citizenship for nonhuman animals, Donaldson and 

Kymlicka take into account the main objection: nonhumans are incapable of language, and 

therefore of engaging into dialogue, understanding the sense of norms and even less of 

participating in the public deliberations to make decisions regarding our coexistence
3
. In 

particular, they consider the three “moral powers” required for the exercise of citizenship: 

 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2017; 8(1): 21-32 

23 

(i) the capacity to have a subjective good, and to communicate it;  

(ii) the capacity to comply with social norms/cooperation; and  

(iii) the capacity to participate in the co-authoring of laws
4
. 

 

These three requirements seem to discard citizenship for domesticated animals. Indeed, 

without the use of language — in any conceivable symbolic form, we could add—, many 

consider it impossible for animals to participate in citizenship. However, Donaldson and 

Kymlicka believe that in this refusal there is a flaw in the description of these powers: 

 

We do not dispute this basic list. We do, however, dispute the way in which these 

three capacities are typically interpreted
5
. 

 

To support their thesis, they refer to recent disability theories of citizenship and claim that 

their fundamental tenets can also be affirmed for animals
6
. Disabled people too have often 

been seen from a paternalistic perspective, considering that they had to be “well treated” but 

not believing that they could be full citizens. 

 

However, recently the expression of the point of view of people with disabilities (either by 

themselves or by their caretakers) has questioned this assumption; and their questioning lies 

in objecting to the idea that we have to exercise all our intellectual powers to be an active part 

of the political community. If we do not take such a narrow concept of agency, and admit that 

one can express oneself with some assistance, participation becomes conceivable. We can 

think of someone having a subjective conception of good as expressed by certain nonverbal 

indexes, who can comply with norms and who is able to defend their perspective when 

elaborating regulations
7
. But now, if we have a look at domesticated animals, we verify that 

at least in many species they can also exercise the moral powers with some assistance. 

Therefore, Zoopolis concludes, citizenship is an adequate concept for their participation in 

our shared community. 

 

An internal difficulty and the possible usefulness of phenomenology and ontology: 

Along their reasoning, the authors of Zoopolis are insistent on refusing to consider the 

ontological question concerning the animal/human divide. With this, they reject any 

metaphysical consideration or, as I prefer to say, first philosophy. In particular, they 

explicitly criticize the use of “personhood” to deny citizenship rights — or even any right 

whatsoever— to nonhuman animals
8
. The authors are right, in my view, to “reject any 

attempt to distinguish personhood from selfhood as the basis for inviolable rights”
9
 and they 

are also right to qualify these attempts as “conceptually unsustainable, morally unmotivated, 

and radically destabilizing of the very idea of universal human rights.”
10

 Nonetheless, they 

seem to consider that no more considerations in first philosophy are necessary to pursue their 

argument. In my view, this is a mistake, mainly because it undermines their capacity to face a 

serious internal difficulty; and also because they may have missed an intellectual tool in 

favour of their positions. 

 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2017; 8(1): 21-32 

24 

This becomes clear in my view when we consider the “internal” difficulty that arises if we 

analyse the “communicative requirements” of political participation. Above all, it is true that 

Zoopolis persuasively establishes that animals do have the “prerequisites” not only to claim 

“negative” rights but also for the exercise of “positive” rights, such as those of political 

participation. 

 

Nevertheless, we may consider that, after all, there is a difference between the participation 

which involves reflection and language
11

, and that which does not include them. This 

distinction goes mostly along the divide between humans and nonhumans
12

. And it may be 

asked whether this different form of participation may have consequences regarding different 

participation rights. 

 

Thus, animals for sure can make their needs and interests conveyed, but generally it is 

humans who know them, have learned to understand their signs, and, as the authors 

themselves recognise, must interpret them. Animals need humans to make their claims heard; 

and they need humans to use arguments “on behalf” of them, not as if they had told them 

previously but rather in the sense that some humans design arguments that animals would 

possibly have made if they had been able to. In sum, for this discursive and argumentative 

political participation, animals need some humans to be their voice. 

 

In my view, this “communicative difference” poses a problem for the use of “citizenship” for 

domestic animals
13

. Referring to the “modified” and “amplified” notion of participation, 

which includes other ways of having your case be taken into account, does not solve this 

difficulty, as Donaldson and Kymlicka seem to believe
14

. Indeed, this “wider” notion makes 

it clear that animals’ participation has to be conceptualised, but not necessarily by the same 

concept we use for humans. Therefore, it may be asked whether “citizenship” can be applied 

to participants that take part in so different ways, or if rather this “amplification” would in 

fact change the notion of citizenship in such a way that it would be deprived of its usefulness 

in political theory. In sum, the communicative difference leads us to ask whether Zoopolis’ 

use of citizenship, in the name of a just cause, would not finally use it too vaguely, blurring 

important differences, and thus denaturalizing an important concept for thinking political 

participation, a denaturalization that would possibly undermine not only rights for humans, 

but also for nonhuman animals. 

 

Thus, if my considerations are correct, Zoopolis has a problem that must be faced. However, I 

believe that a full assessment of this problem needs to go beyond the framework of 

Donaldson’s and Kymlicka’s book. In my view, it is necessary to go beyond the domain of 

political philosophy and carry out some analyses in first philosophy. We need to see in more 

detail how this communicative difference is structured and what this means with regard to a 

possible ontological distinction between humans and non-humans. If our attempt was 

successful, then we would have a more clarified conceptual landscape of the relationship 

between humans and other animals, at least in some important cases (some of the most 

common and closest human/animal interactions)
15

. And this, in turn, could help develop a 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2017; 8(1): 21-32 

25 

moral reasoning and decide on the pertinence of participation rights for animals and if this 

participation has to be conceptualised as citizenship in the case of domesticated animals. 

 

Different realms and different types: being-in-the-world and being-in-an-environment; 

Phenomenological and ontological considerations: In my opinion, the considerations in 

first philosophy need to consider firstly the different realms established in the interactions 

between humans and other animals — we leave aside the realms constituted by nonhuman 

animals among themselves, within the same species or between different ones —; and 

secondly, we need to study the problem of the type of being that each of us is, humans and 

nonhumans, according to their belonging or not to each realm
16

. 

 

There are of course different methods in first philosophy. Here I assume a phenomenological 

approach. Certainly in a longer paper I should make a lengthier justification, but given the 

scope of this paper I propose phenomenology as a method that is particularly useful to 

describe what happens in the interactions between humans and other animals, particularly 

with regard to the realms that become constituted by virtue of their interaction. From there, 

we could draw some ontological hypotheses. 

 

Certainly, it may be argued that phenomenology is firstly a method and ontology goes 

beyond its domain. But this passage is part of the phenomenological tradition. It is present in 

Husserl himself, when speaking about consciousness as the transcendental realm, and also 

well beyond Husserl; for example, Jan Patočka gives an interesting distinction, between 

phenomenology and phenomenological philosophy, whereby phenomenology deals strictly 

with the analysis of appearance, while the latter derives “metaphysical consequences” from 

these analyses, which makes possible a phenomenological ontology
17

. 

 

As is also known, there are as many directions in phenomenology as there are 

phenomenologists. Indeed, for the question of humans and other animals there are some very 

interesting authors, like Renaud Barbaras in France, to mention a contemporary thinker. For 

my purpose, and considering the communicative problem I take as a basis, I propose to the 

reader to follow here one development that I have found particularly helpful: the analysis of 

transcendental intersubjectivity according to Edmund Husserl, the founder of 

phenomenology
18

. 

 

For Husserl, the subjective transcendental realm is inescapably intersubjective. Subjects are 

given to us as opposed to pure objects. Indeed, when being referred to other subjects, I know 

from the phenomenon itself, “directly” that they are “I”s with their own lives. However, this 

does not entail that I “enter” their conscious lives and somehow become one with them. 

There is a special form of presentation of subjects in which we immediately take certain traits 

of the other as pertaining to an inner life. Husserl calls this form of presentation 

“appresentation”. It is a form of apperception, a mode of perception in which there is more 

than what is actually perceived. In this case, we perceive a body making certain gestures, but 

we go beyond towards the apperception and appresentation of another “I”: 

 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2017; 8(1): 21-32 

26 

To apperceive means to grasp something over and above what is actually perceived 

[…]. In apperception, there is a sense that the object is mediated through something 

else that is presented immediately. For instance, in all perception of a physical object, 

direct perception is of the facing side of the object, the hidden sides of the object are 

apperceived or appresented in an empty manner […]. When I perceive someone's 

living body, I perceive it as a living organism but I apperceive it as someone else's 

living body
19

. 

 

Now, concerning the possible appresentations between humans and other animals, there are 

two things that might be said for the moment. Firstly, it seems clear that between humans 

there is apperception and appresentation in a much profounder way than between humans and 

other animals, as well as probably between nonhuman animals themselves. However, 

secondly, nonhuman animals and humans are together opposed to vegetables, other life forms 

and inert beings in that between them there is some form of appresentation. We perceive in 

them some signs of a living body and thus we apperceive a living self; and in turn, animals 

make clear signs of doing a similar process with us. 

 

Let us consider an example: I now see my cat “Leo” in the corridor. He looks excited. I can 

tell this from how he has his ears and how he moves his tail. As he also moves in a confident 

way, I know that his excitement is because he wants to play; in turn, he sees me and hears the 

tone of my voice. This is the tone I normally use when I am about to start playing, and so Leo 

gets more excited and even jumps a little. I have seen in Leo some signs of a living body and 

a living subject who is able to know himself well enough to be aware that he wants to play. 

Conversely, it seems that Leo knows and acknowledges in his manner that I am a subject 

with a living body, and a subject who wants to play with him. Leo and I are carrying out 

appresentation processes. This interaction between Leo and I is not for sure the same I may 

have with my human friends or with my human students; but anyone can see that with other 

“lower” animals this interaction is impossible, not to speak of inanimate things, like the poor 

toy I use to play with Leo. 

 

Our phenomenological analysis can go further, and we can see that in this interaction there is 

something more going on: the constitution of a realm within which Leo and I are interacting, 

some sort of “space” where we develop our appresentation processes
20

. However, there is 

also a difference regarding the realms constituted. 

 

Firstly, we may say that humans among themselves constitute a realm which in my opinion 

has to be described as world. The world is not primarily the sum of all entities but rather the 

all-encompassing realm within which everything else is included. It is given in experience as 

a horizon necessarily present whenever consciousness is referred to any object. Husserl gives 

a very famous example in the first volume of Ideas
21

. In this example, I am sitting on my 

desk writing philosophy, but simultaneously and inevitably I co-perceive the room around 

me; also, in a more blurred way, I notice my wife and children in the dining room. In these 

co-perceptions, I am “referred” and “led” from one object to the other. Further, these 

references do not stop at the co-perceptions, as from the dining room and my house I am also 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2017; 8(1): 21-32 

27 

referred to other objects that are not perceived but of which I know; this is “a ‘knowing of 

them’ which involves no conceptual thinking and it changes into a clear intuiting only with 

the advertence of attention.”
22

 But this is not the end, as from there I am finally remitted to 

the all-encompassing horizon: 

 

What is now perceived and what is more or less clearly co-present and determinate (or 

at least somewhat determinate), are penetrated and surrounded by an obscurely 

intended horizon of indeterminate reality [Wirklichkeit]
23

. 

 

In contrast, it does not seem that animals have a world in the sense described. As we observe 

them, they do not seem to behave as if they are related to an all-encompassing world. They 

have rather an “environment,” a more or less extended field which is finally limited: a house, 

a garden, a forest, or even two areas linked by a migration route. In all these cases, the realm 

is determinate. And especially, when we interact with them — and as far as we interact, 

within the interaction itself, but also within each interaction we may have —, we are not 

being referred to a common “world” that the animal and I would share; we are also in an 

environment. I myself am for sure referred to the “world,” but only if I get out of the 

interaction with the animal and the common realm constituted when I (or we) interact with 

him or her. And this is true, I think, no matter how large the environment can be. 

 

Returning to my previous example: when I play with Leo, he and I are for sure in a common 

realm; but as we interact, it is not the world that is in perspective (in our common perspective, 

that which we are sharing as we play). Playing together, we are in a house, and the domain of 

our playing is enclosed within the house; in our playing we have not the “world” in 

perspective. I may have it, but for this I have to get out from the interaction with Leo, even if 

for an instant. 

 

There are, consequently, two different realms: the human realm that is the world and the 

human-animal realm that is an environment. These realms are qualitatively different. Firstly, 

the environment is limited and determinate while the world is indeterminately extending to 

the infinite. But there is more, as the human realm is one where humans linguistically 

interact; the world appears to humans who interact using complex language. On the other 

hand, the human-animal realm is one where we interact exclusively by bodily signs that 

indicate our interests and requirements. I as a human may have language, but interacting with 

Leo I am attentive to his bodily signs (tail movement, miaow, etc.). Even when I speak to 

him, my words are bodily signs: my “no” addressed to him as he has done something he 

shouldn’t have is intended to be a bodily sign. 

 

From this difference of realms we may further conclude that different kinds of subjectivity are 

exercised in each realm. I say here “exercised” because I am not dealing now with what 

animal or human subjectivity is “as such” but in how animals and humans concretely 

develop their subjective life when situated in one or another realm (we may put it by saying 

that I am here on the plane of phenomenology, while the other consideration would already 

belong to ontology). On one hand, it is clear to me that in both realms we are dealing with 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2017; 8(1): 21-32 

28 

selves, that is. More importantly, in both realms the self shows signs of being aware and “in 

possession” of its needs and wants as to say that this self has interests. These interests, in 

turn, given the interactive nature of the realms, are ones which will take a part in any 

confrontation and decision, whether mediated by language (in the human realm) or by other 

bodily signs. 

 

On the other hand, however, it seems clear to me that there are differences. The key element 

here is the presence of language. In the case of the human realm, the world, the subjects use 

language to make sense of their needs and wants; this enables them to carry out more 

elaborate connections among these needs, confronting them with others with high detail and 

eventually modifying them by virtue of this confrontation. Especially, this means that their 

interests are confronted within complex reasoning processes that indispensably involve 

language. This means that any agreement requires, at least ideally, agreements based on 

discussion and reasoning using language, as for example Habermas has so well described. 

 

Thus, it may be said that although humans and animals live and interact in their realms as 

selves, they “exercise” them differently. However, this does not lead to deny animals’ 

subjectivity, reducing them to purely present sensorial stimulation. Animals may “exercise” 

their subjective life differently, but in my view there is undeniably a true subjective life and a 

true self. My point is that, phenomenologically speaking, we need to speak of different kinds 

of exercising subjectivity, not that there is not subjective life in animals
24

. 

 

Now, from these phenomenological descriptions, we may draw some ontological 

conclusions. Thus, firstly we may establish a difference between human beings and other 

animals. On one side, we have humans, those beings between whom linguistic 

communication and complex reasoning is necessary, and between whom a realm called 

“world” is constituted. On the other side, we have animals — or at least many animals —, 

characterised by bodily signs which seem to point to some sort of embodied self which we 

perceive as similar to us but also distinct from any human being; among them (and among 

them and us) the realm constituted is enclosed and excludes language, at least most times. 

This means that we humans are ontologically different from animals, although we may have 

an ontological common realm, the environment (or rather, environments). However, this first 

ontological thesis, which stresses the distinction, has to be balanced with a second thesis 

according to which animals and humans are together in the same class as opposed to the rest 

of realities, as among them there can be some form of “appresentation,” unlike in the other 

cases. 

 

The previous considerations are also relevant for an important conclusion regarding the types 

of subjectivity that each of us are, humans or animals. Now we are no longer on the plane of 

phenomenology as when speaking about the “exercising” of subjective life, but on that of 

phenomenological ontology. In this sense, it seems clear to me that we need to speak of two 

kinds of subjectivity: one of them (humans) is capable both of linguistic interaction within 

the world and within an environment; and the other is only capable of the non-linguistic 

interaction within an environment. Going back to the previous example: when interacting 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2017; 8(1): 21-32 

29 

with Leo, I am exercising a subjective life like his. This is why we can understand each other. 

But at any moment I can pass into my other possibility, which Leo cannot. And in my view, 

this has to be interpreted as he and I being different kinds of subjective beings. 

 

Conclusion: the ontological difference and the affirmation of participation rights for 

nonhuman animals; A preliminary thesis in moral philosophy: Our previous 

considerations point to an ontological difference between humans and nonhumans. 

Nonetheless, establishing of this distinction is one thing and inferring rights and duties is 

quite another. 

 

Now, for the moral argument, and taking into account the hypotheses described above, we 

need to consider that in both realms the participants are selves with their own necessities and 

interests. Consequently, if we accept as a moral criterion that morally correct decisions 

require an equitable assessment of everyone’s positions, then in both cases their interests 

matter, in both they need to be taken into account and in both they have to be expressed and 

included in discussions. 

 

However, the differences we have remarked make us see something crucial for the moral 

argument: animals can only express their needs and interests through direct bodily non-

linguistic signs, but their interests need to be taken into account in the language-mediated 

interaction within the human realm. From there, I think that a first moral conclusion can be 

drawn, namely: that animals not only depend on us being their voice, but also that we are 

under the moral obligation to be their voice and take them into account. 

 

We may also draw some other conclusions, which of course are provisional and open to 

discussion. Firstly, we agree with Zoopolis’ authors that from selfhood it may be inferred that 

nonhuman animals are subjects entitled to have both positive and negative rights. However, 

we may say that a phenomenological and ontological distinction is clear between animals and 

humans, and that this must be reflected in the use of moral and political concepts. Therefore, 

from a conceptual perspective, we may state as a second ethico-political thesis that some sort 

of concept must be used whose intension adequately reflects the relevant features of animals 

and humans with regard to political participation, and whose extension is univocally referred 

to both animals and humans. Closely related to this second thesis, and also within the 

“conceptual” sphere, our third thesis states that another concept must be used to speak about 

the ethical status, rights, and duties of those who can engage in a more elaborate form of 

political participation made possible by the shared world constituted through human 

intersubjective re-presentation mediated by language. However, fourthly, we may for the 

moment leave open the question whether we use citizenship for domesticated animals and a 

new concept for humans, or rather if we create a new concept for animals and humans. In my 

view, both options are defendable: using citizenship for humans and animals may have the 

advantage of providing the symbolical force of this concept to non-humans; and restricting 

citizenship for humans could help avoid the risk of diluting the force of the concept of 

citizenship while encouraging our moral imagination to design another concept for positive 

participation. 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2017; 8(1): 21-32 

30 

 

Furthermore, I believe that our phenomenological and ontological reading of the 

human/animal relationship may help overcome the possible insufficiency of Zoopolis with 

regard to the communicative difference. Indeed, if our theses are sustainable, then we could 

defend the idea that “citizenship” can be applied cogently to domesticated non-human 

animals despite their belonging to different types of being. And even if we think that 

citizenship has to be applied only to humans, at least our considerations would make sure that 

positive participation rights, whatever the name we use for them, are granted to non-human 

animals, in spite of the phenomenological and ontological differences. 

 

There are many other subjects that should be addressed. For instance, as I have already 

indicated, a further development should take into account the possible ontological differences 

between what we may have too overarchingly called “nonhuman animals.” There should be a 

justification of the phenomenological method. And for sure, the integration of data from the 

different sciences would be pertinent; in this regard, Mary Midgley's wide use of ethology is 

to me a referent despite the years passed
25

. 

 

Ethical progress has historically taken the form of enlarging the scope of those who matter 

morally. Those who before were aliens, and thus without rights, were deemed later “like us” 

and entitled to the same rights. The animal rights movement is decidedly part of this 

movement. Still, maybe here we will not be able to reject all differences but simultaneously 

see that this is no reason to deny rights. I know that this may sound like the classical 

“separate but equal” argument that has been so rightfully refuted in the past when speaking 

about humans. However, here I cannot help thinking that this difference must be kept; and as 

I am persuaded of the justification of participation rights for animals, I believe that we need 

to find some operative notion of a distinction compatible with equality. Still, even if my 

views are contested or refuted I will be happy if that means a clarification of the discussion, 

as well as effective progress for the animals with whom we share the planet. 

 

 

Author Contribution: The author developed the conceptual idea and wrote the manuscript. 

 

Conflict of Interest: Declared none. 

 

Acknowledgements: None. 

 

Dedicated: To Leo, my cat companion and my best teacher in Animal Philosophy. 

 
Notes and References 

 
1
 Sue Donaldson, & Will Kymlicka. Zoopolis. A Political Theory of Animal Rights. Oxford 

University Press, Oxford; 2011. 
2
 The use and etymology of the term “denizen” is in itself revealing. According to the 

Merrian-Webster dictionary, its first meaning is simply “inhabitant”, but the second one is “a 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2017; 8(1): 21-32 

31 

 
person admitted to residence in a foreign country; especially: an alien admitted to rights of 

citizenship”. This last meaning points to the inner strength of the concept of denizenship for 

liminal animals: they are within us although they are not “one of us,” they might even be 

called resident aliens, though Donaldson and Kymlicka could find this expression 

objectionable as being vulnerable to the false assumption that liminal animals “do not belong 

here.” In fact, we agree with them: they may be “alien” to us, but they definitely “belong 

here.” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denizen, seen on September 10
th

, 2016). 
3
 Cf. Zoopolis, pp. 102 ff. The discussion on pp. 57 ff. is also relevant: it highlights the fact 

that the concept “citizenship” is not restricted to “democratic political agency”, but also to 

“nationality” and “popular sovereignty”; this means that we could even consider some form 

of citizenship for nonhuman animals without ascribing to them some form of political 

agency. However, for my aim here, it is more interesting to consider the authors’ thesis of 

political agency for animals. 
4
 Ibidem, p. 103. 

5
 loc.cit. 

6
 Cf. ibidem, pp. 105-108. 

7
 The authors admit the difficulties present in this approach: there is a risk of manipulation by 

the caretakers who assist them in expressing their points of view. But this for them is not an 

insurmountable obstacle. 
8
 Cf. ibidem, pp. 27-33. 

9
 Ibidem, p. 32. 

10
 Loc. Cit. 

11
 This is the kind of interaction considered in most of contemporary political philosophy, 

especially in Habermas or Rawls. 
12

 I leave aside the problem of limit cases. I find that to sort out the problem we should make 

other considerations in detail, especially the fact that the appresentation between a human 

being and another human being who is unconscious still point to a human subjectivity, which 

is not the case in animals. As I say below, explaining appresentation, this is mediated by 

bodily signs that speak of a human lived corporeality in spite of the circumstances. 
13

 Or, for that matter, sovereignty or denizenship. Although some differential qualifications 

could be necessary, I do believe that what I say about citizenship can also be said of the other 

two possibilities. I will not repeat it, as to not to be too reiterative. 
14

 Cf. ibidem, pp. 57-59. 
15

 I express here my gratitude to an anonymous reviewer of an earlier version of this paper, 

who remarked that I had to be precise in what sense ontology could be useful. As a result, I 

have seen that firstly it can help clarify the conceptual landscape; and secondly I have 

insisted more on the role that phenomenology strictly speaking can play before getting into 

ontology. 
16

 I insist on the qualification that these “types” are established with regard to the belonging 

to the realms described. Other types of being according to other criteria could be established, 

and for sure in some of them humans and some animals would be together. I do not claim to 

propose here an exclusive classification.  
17

 Cf. Plato and Europe. Stanford University Press, Stanford (Cl); 2002, pp. 15-37. 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denizen


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2017; 8(1): 21-32 

32 

 
18

 I do not use Husserl’s analyses of animals, which are of course very interesting. For 

Husserl’s treatment of the animal question, see for example Sara Heinamäa. “Transcendental 

Intersubjectivity and Normality: Constitution by Mortals”, in Rasmus Thybo Jensen and 

Dermot Moran (eds.). The Phenomenology of Embodied Subjectivity, Springer, Heidelberg-

New York-Dordrecht-London; 2013, pp. 83-103, particularly p. 91. 
19

 Dermot
 
Moran and Joseph Cohen. The Husserl Dictionary, Continuum, London-New 

York; 2012, pp. 39-40. 
20

 There is also a temporal dimension. However, the question of time is one of the most 

difficult ones in phenomenology and I think that for my purpose here it may be enough to 

concentrate on the realms from the point of view of spatiality. 
21

 Cf. Edmund Husserl. Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a 

Phenomenological Philosophy. First Book: General Introduction to a Pure Phenomenology. 

Translated by F.Kersten. Martinus Nijhoff Publisher, The Hague-Boston-Lancaster; 1983, pp. 

51-52. 
22

 Ibidem, p.52. 
23

 Ibidem, p. 52. I change the translation of Wirklichkeit. The translator chooses “actuality” 

but I prefer here “reality”. 
24

 At least among many animal species. Among them we count those with whom we interact 

more, like the most typical domestic animals (cats and dogs), farm animals (cows, horses, 

etc.), along with many animal denizens (rats, squirrels, etc.), and wild animals (eagles, lions, 

etc.). Thorough research would have to consider the different interactions and realms with 

different animals, but in this contribution I have restricted myself to the group of animals 

with whom a closer interaction seems possible. 
25

 Mary Midgley. Beast and Man. Routledge, London and New York; 1995 (original edition: 

1978). 


