Correction Appended


When feminist Mary Wollstonecraft published A Vindication of the Rights of Women in 1792, satirist Thomas Taylor responded with A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes. Taylor mocked the absurdity of studying women’s rights by suggesting this might one day lead scholars to take seriously the even zanier notion of animal rights. If this occurred, he warned, “government may be entirely subverted, subordination abolished.”

In 1986, Harvard fulfilled half of Taylor’s nightmare when the College instituted a Committee on Degrees in Women’s Studies. And, this coming fall, undergraduates here may fulfill the other half by enrolling for a new General Education course to be taught on animal studies. It could, and should, be the first step toward Harvard’s newest academic discipline.

Animal studies springs from the premise that animals are both integral to human history and are beings worthy of study in their own right. Inspired by the rise of environmental studies, African American studies, and women’s studies, animal studies applies a multidisciplinary lens to an equally scorned object of inquiry. Drawing on fields from biology and anthropology to philosophy, history, and literature, it explores problematic notions like the “natural,” the “humane,” and the “animalistic.”

This idea has caught on: A recent tally found over 150 university animal studies courses in North America, covering everything from theories of animal rights to animals as symbols in ancient civilizations.

Here at Harvard, William R. Kennan Jr. Professor of English and Visual and Environmental Studies Marjorie Garber is currently teaching “The Visual Animal”—a graduate seminar designing the General Education course on animals in literature, art, and popular culture to be offered next year. And Associate Professor of the History of Science Sarah Jansen launched a class on the history of dogs this semester.

Critics lament that animal studies programs privilege a particular theme (here, animals) over a mode of inquiry (for example, scientific analysis), while favoring a politicization of academia by conveying overt animal -rights messages.

Yet this academic focus on theme over method reflects a broader pedagogical recognition that students can learn multiples modes of inquiry by researching just one theme—a realization behind the reform of Harvard’s Core Curriculum into thematic General Education areas. Moreover, as Etienne Benson, a graduate student who chairs Harvard’s animal history group, notes, the multidisciplinary nature of animal studies fosters dialogue. At a recent meeting of the group, Aramont Professor of the History of Science and Darwin scholar Janet Browne engaged with MIT cultural historian Harriet Ritvo on the history of sheep domestication in England.

The politicization critique bears more weight but does not warrant derision. Many (though by no means all) animal studies scholars do support animal rights, just as African American studies scholars typically favor civil rights, and environmental studies and women studies scholars are often environmentalists and feminists, respectively. Academia is full of normative debates demanding opinions; what matters is that all viewpoints are presented and that critical discourse is encouraged.

And, as it happens, Harvard has already set a model for how this critical discourse can occur. In 2007, students organized a series of panels entitled “Finding Animals” and “Animal Crossings,” in which legal scholars, philosophers, literary theorists, theologians, and artists discussed the social and moral status of animals. Over 300 members of the Harvard community attended, with biologists challenging panel members on animal experimentation and political scientists disputing the ramifications of granting legal protections to animals.

As such questions become more urgent, and as the animal-rights movement’s growing prominence drives us to rethink society’s use (and abuse) of animals, such dialogue becomes increasingly important. And, for a debate often conducted on the streets and in media headlines, the lecture theater offers a rare opportunity for critical analysis.

Thankfully, other prominent institutions have led the way. Just up the road, the Center for Animals and Public Policy at Tufts University has a 25-year history of offering classes in veterinary ethics, animal welfare legislation, and the changing dynamic of human-animal relations. In 2006, Oxford University theologian Rev. Andrew Linzey established the Oxford Animal Ethics Center with the support of 100 academics, among them Nobel laureate J.M. Coetzee.

Now it’s time for Harvard to follow suit. Benson notes that Harvard’s faculty and students have already shown significant interest in animal studies but often lack the structure to interact. A yearlong speaker series could change that, as could the offering of more animal studies courses.

The ultimate goal of many animal studies scholars—of a formal degree committee akin to those for environmental and women’s studies—may still be a long way off. But with alumni now organizing in support of the goal and many faculty members sympathetic, it is no longer an impossibility.

And, when that the day comes, A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes should be at the top of the syllabus.


Lewis E. Bollard ’09 is a social studies concentrator in Kirkland House. His column appears on alternate Wednesdays.

CORRECTION: The April 15 column “Animal Studies at Harvard” falsely identified Etienne Benson as a graduate student, when in fact he is a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for the Environment and the Department of the History of Science. The Crimson regrets the error.