Understanding animal (ab)use: Green criminological contributions, missed opportunities and a way forward
| DOI | 10.1177/1362480618787173 |
| Author | Amy Fitzgerald,Nik Taylor |
| Published date | 01 August 2018 |
| Date | 01 August 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
787173TCR0010.1177/1362480618787173Theoretical CriminologyTaylor and Fitzgerald
research-article2018
Article
Theoretical Criminology
2018, Vol. 22(3) 402 –425
Understanding animal (ab)
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
use: Green criminological
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480618787173
DOI: 10.1177/1362480618787173
journals.sagepub.com/home/tcr
contributions, missed
opportunities and a way
forward
Nik Taylor
Flinders University of South Australia, Australia
Amy Fitzgerald
University of Windsor, Canada
Abstract
While the last two decades have witnessed considerable growth in green criminology,
the positioning of nonhuman animals within the field remains unclear and contested.
This article provides an analysis of green criminological work—published since the 1998
special issue of Theoretical Criminology—that addresses harms and crime perpetrated
against nonhuman animals. We assess trends in the quantity of the work over time
and how the treatment of nonhuman animals has unfolded through an analysis of green
criminology articles, chapters in edited volumes and monographs. We find that while
the amount of consideration given to nonhuman animals by green criminologists has
increased dramatically over the years, much of this work has focused on crimes and
harms against wild animals (e.g. “wildlife poaching”, “trafficking”), comparatively less
attention has been paid to so-called “domesticated animals” or to larger questions of
species justice. Based on these findings, we consider how concepts in critical animal
studies, ecofeminism and feminist intersectional theories may be utilized in green
criminological debates regarding animal (ab)use. With the goal of stimulating further
work in this vein, we outline three areas where green criminology has much to offer: (1)
Corresponding author:
Nik Taylor, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research,
University of Windsor, 401 Sunset, Windsor, ON N9B 3P4, Canada.
Email: afitz@uwindsor.ca
Taylor and Fitzgerald
403
researching and exposing meat production and consumption as a form of animal abuse
and as a major contributor to global climate change; (2) bridging the divide between
environmentalism, animal advocacy and their associated areas of academic study; and
(3) refining and reflecting on methodological choices, all with the aim of developing a
nonspeciesist green criminology.
Keywords
Animal abuse, animal harm, animal studies, ecofeminism, green criminology
Introduction
In 1998, the first special issue of Theoretical Criminology introduced “a new ‘green
field’ of study for criminology” (South and Beirne, 1998: 147) by presenting arguments
for the extension of criminology into a green field (Benton, 1998; South, 1998), as well
as ideas regarding how that might be achieved (e.g. Benton, 1998; Lane, 1998). Two of
the articles focused specifically on nonhuman animals.1 In the first, Benton (1998: 171)
pointed out the inadequacy of existing rights-based theories for the protection of animal
species, concluding that instead a hybrid approach was needed:
This alternative would be a many-sided project for social, economic and ecological
transformation inspired by spontaneous moral sentiments which flow from anxiety and horror
in the face of continuing human destruction of non-human nature, and by the egalitarian,
co-operative and popular democratic values inherited from earlier anarchist and socialist
traditions, and now carried forward by the feminist, peace, green and other progressive social
movements.
In the second article, Agnew (1998) generated a theoretical model based on leading crim-
inological theories to understand why individuals engage in animal abuse. He concluded
that there was an urgent need for research to better understand the nature of, and motiva-
tions behind it, as “the extent and severity of animal abuse make it one of the leading
problems of our time” (1998: 203). Taken together, and read in the context of the call
from the authors in the wider special issue for the development of a field of green crimi-
nology, these two articles offered practical, theoretical and conceptual ways that animal
abuse/the needs of nonhuman animals could become a specific focus within the field.
In the 20 years since the publication of this special issue, there has been a heartening
amount of scholarly attention paid to the abuse of animals outside of the traditional fields
of biology and ethology (e.g. Ascione and Lockwood, 1998; Flynn, 2012; Maher et al.,
2017; the special issue of Crime, Law and Social Change on animal abuse and criminol-
ogy in 2011; the special issues of Contemporary Justice Review on animals, justice and
the law in 2015 and 2016). Much of this work has been grounded in the broad field of
animal studies, which has also undergone tremendous growth during this time period
(Shapiro and DeMello, 2010). Piers Beirne (2011: 354), who co-founded Theoretical
Criminology and is recognized widely as the authority on criminological examinations of
animal abuse, has argued that animal studies provides a “supportive context” for green
404
Theoretical Criminology 22(3)
criminological investigations of animal abuse. Other green criminology scholars have
suggested that the need to include animal abuse within the boundaries of green criminol-
ogy is not self-evident and requires further justification than has to date been provided.
For example, Stretesky et al. (2014: 107) write that “it is unclear why the study of animal
abuse ought to be included within green criminology, or why such studies are not more
properly situated within animal studies or human–animal studies literature”. They fur-
ther contend that “[a]nimal abuse is one area of research in green criminology that has
drawn considerable attention” and that the position it has assumed within the field is a
“privileged” one given that it has not been sufficiently theorized and justified (Stretesky
et al., 2014: 106).
In this article, we assess the positioning of animals within the rapidly developing field
of green criminology since the first special issue of Theoretical Criminology and suggest
that green criminological approaches to animal (ab)use are best served by drawing on,
extending and refining concepts, theories and arguments in critical animal studies, par-
ticularly those from ecofeminist traditions (e.g. Sollund, 2008, 2012a, 2013). Critical
animal studies (CAS) has developed within and alongside the field of human–animal
studies (see Taylor and Twine, 2014) with an explicit focus on asymmetrical power rela-
tions between species. CAS scholarship is firmly located in the idea of a critical praxis—
of activist scholarship—and devoted to understanding—in order to stop—the mechanisms
that allow humans to oppress and abuse other species (see, for example, Nocella et al.,
2014). Drawing on the intellectual legacy of ecofeminism (Taylor and Twine, 2014), the
orienting perspective of CAS is that of intersecting oppressions, particularly between
women, animals and nature. Those working in this area often self-identify as “critical
animal studies” scholars, although this subfield is now expanding and includes, for
example, “critical animal and media studies” (Almiron and Cole, 2016) and “critical
vegan geographies” (White, 2015). We suggest that the scholarship in CAS and ecofemi-
nism can enhance green criminology study of animal (ab)use.
Accordingly, this article has four main objectives. The first is to map existing green
criminological work on animals since the publication of the original 1998 special issue.
(The “Methods” section of the article describes the body of green criminological work
that we have examined.) Second, we attempt to find patterns within that range of work.
The third objective is to identify gaps within that body of scholarship. Finally, we high-
light some future directions for green criminological study of nonhuman animals.
Method
In order to address our objectives, we undertook an analysis of the treatment of animals
within green criminological literature from the 1998 publication of the green criminol-
ogy special issue in Theoretical Criminology through 2017. Using Proquest, Web of
Science (which incorporates, Social Science Citation Index, Science Citation Index-
Expanded, Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation
Index—Science, Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Social Science and
Humanities, Emerging Sources Citation Index) and Scopus, we searched for “green
criminology” and “animal” in all fields in English language articles in peer-reviewed
sources. The removal of duplicates left us with 168 articles.
Taylor and Fitzgerald
405
Next, we located edited books and monographs published in the field of green crimi-
nology. Originally, we conducted a search using the search terms “green criminology”
and “animal” in ProQuest, Web of Science and Scopus, which identified only a few
books and notably excluded many edited volumes on green criminology. As a result, we
widened our search by including the terms “environment” and “criminology” or “crime”,
and included a search of Google Scholar (which appeared more likely to pick up books
than the academic databases) to allow for the inclusion of books that are not focused on
animals but nonetheless may contain some chapters on animal-related topics. We also
searched through the titles in green/environmental criminology...
To continue reading
Request your trial