 Still, some of the work in political theory has been influenced by findings in comparative cognition. An example of this is the debate surrounding the notion of personhood, a term that marks those beings who are entitled to legal protection, and which is often linked to certain cognitive capacities, such as rationality, self-awareness, or sociality. Drawing on the accumulating psychological evidence, scholars have defended that personhood should be granted to great apes (Andrews et al. 2018; Cavalieri &amp; Singer 1993), cetaceans (Cavalieri 2011; White 2007), and elephants (Poole 1998). The capacities of animals documented by comparative cognition have also been used to defend different ways in which animals can be seen as having a political agency of their own, and thus as capable of engaging in political participation. Meijer (2019), for instance, has argued that animals can communicate in complex and nuanced ways using multimodal signals, and that by means of these they can express their needs and negotiate their relationships with us. Rather than seeing them merely as voiceless victims, she encourages us to take their voices into account when shaping an interspecies democracy.