Green victimology and non-human victims
| Published date | 01 May 2018 |
| Date | 01 May 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0269758017745615 |
| Author | Rob White |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Green victimology and
non-human victims
Rob White
University of Tasmania, Australia
Abstract
This article explores the tensions and interplay between human and non-human environmental
victims from the point of view of eco-justice. The article begins by sketching out the broad con-
tours of green victimology as a newly emerging area of intellectual engagement. Human victims of
environmental harm are not widely recognised as victims of ‘crime’. Moreover, within the category
‘victim’, the non-human environmental victim is seldom considered worthy of attention. From an
eco-justice perspective, victimhood can be conceptualised in terms of environmental justice (the
victim is human), ecological justice (the victim is specific environments) and species justice (the
victim is animals, and plants). Hierarchies of victims between and within each of these categories
can be identified. One response to these hierarchies is to assert the notion of ‘equal victimhood’
(based on the notion, for example, that all species should be considered equal or that the natural
environment has its own intrinsic worth). However, the eco-justice approach adopted in this
article argues that context (both social and ecological) is vital to understanding and responding to
specific instances of environmental victimisation. Particular circumstances must be taken into
account in the conceptualisations of victimisation and in the moral weighing up of interests and
harms in any given situation.
Keywords
Non-human environmental victims, eco-justice, hierarchy of victims, environmental victimisation
Introduction
Green or environmental victimology refers to the study of the social processes and institutional
responses pertaining to victims of environment crime (White, 2015). Typically, it is humans who
are the primary focus of such study (Hall, 2013). As explored in this article, however, non-human
entities, such as trees, rivers and animals, can also be construed as victims of environmental harm,
and the present article aims to discuss these sorts of victims.
Corresponding author:
Rob White, School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 22, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia 7001.
Email: r.d.white@utas.edu.au
International Review of Victimology
2018, Vol. 24(2) 239–255
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0269758017745615
journals.sagepub.com/home/irv
The article explores the tensions and interplay between human and non-human environmental
victims from the point of view of eco-justice. Specifically, the intention is threefold: to highlight
the victim status of non-human entities as an emerging and important area of concern within green
criminology specifically and victimology more generally; to consider the position of non-human
entities within hierarchies of victimisation; and to critique the notion of ‘equal victimhood’ for
human and non-human entities through consideration of situation-specific problems.
The article begins by sketching out the broad contours of green victimology as a newly emer-
ging area of intellectual engagement. The novelty of this research area is that human victims of
environmental harm are themselves not widely recognised as victims of ‘crime’ and, moreover,
within the category ‘environmental victim’, the non-human entity is seldom considered worthy of
attention. The relative dearth of concern about and official reaction to both sets of victims is in
itself indicative of complex relations of power, control and interest.
From an eco-justice perspective (White, 2013), victimhood can be conceptualised in terms of
three overlapping spheres of justice and victimisation: environmental justice (where the victim is
human); ecological justice (where the victim is specific environments); and species justice (where
the victim is animals and plants). In this framework, who or what is victimised is significant, as are
the reasons why those who are harmed are considered victims, or not. This, too, is a central theme
of the present work and is further discussed below.
Hierarchies of victims (human and non-human) between and within each of these three
spheres can be identified. One response to these hierarchies is to assert the idea of ‘equal
victimhood’ (e.g. based on the notion that all species should be considered equal or that the
natural environment has its own intrinsic worth). However, the approach adopted in this article
argues that context (both social and ecological) is vital to understanding and responding to
specific instances of environmental victimisation. That is, particular circumstances must be
taken into account in the conceptualisations of victimisation and in the moral weighing up of
interests and harms in any given situation.
Non-human entities as environmental victims
Environmental harm has traditionally been ignored, downplayed or trivialised, socially and legally
and, thus, so too, has its victims (Hall, 2013; White and Heckenberg, 2014). In a report that maps
the contours of environmental crime and victimisation, for example, Skinnider (2011: 2) observes
that ‘historically research on environmental crime has lacked the theoretical and methodological
depth applied to other traditional crimes’. In part, this is the result of perceptions of environmental
crime as ‘victimless’ to the extent that ‘they do not always produce an immediate consequence, the
harm may be diffused or go undetected for a lengthy period of time’ (Skinnider, 2011: 2). This is
further compounded by the condoning of enviro nmentally harmful activities by governments,
industry and, in some cases, particular communities and society as a whole. As a result, ‘victims
of environmental harm are not widely recognised as victims of “crime” and thus are excluded from
the traditional view of victimology which is largely based on conventional constructions of crime’
(Skinnider, 2011: 2).
Moreover, environmental victimisation is not a solely human experience. Recent criminological
commentary, for example, has given attention to non-human animals as ‘victims’ (while recognis-
ing that, in law, in most jurisdictions, non-human animals cannot be classed as victims of crime)
(Flynn and Hall, 2017). This article has broadly embraced a ‘social harms’ approach to defining
victimhood (Pemberton, 2016), sometimes referred to as ‘zemiology’ (Hillyard and Tombs, 2007),
240 International Review of Victimology 24(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial