No abstract

translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The precarity and violation that has resulted from decades of neoliberal reforms have been made clear in the global COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in terms of access to healthcare and financial inequality. However, ideological discourses of individual heroics have been rapidly deployed, to patch up the damage done to neoliberal rhetoric. In this paper, we argue a critical sociological lens reveals something important about this violence of neoliberalism at this moment during the crisis. Analysing media articles that have considerable reach, availability and shareability, we interrogate the rhetorical framing of frontline workers during the COVID-19 pandemic and uncover three significant themes: ‘celebrating “our” heroes’, ‘personal sacrifice’ and ‘the heroes of war’. We argue that the emerging field of the sociology of violence provides the means to expose the violence of neoliberalism in the current COVID-19 pandemic as well as identify the discursive apparatus that obscure the violation of neoliberalism more generally.

No 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) 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.

Over the past three decades, a growing body of research has focused on experiences of domestic violence and abuse (DVA) among people of diverse genders and/or sexualities. Missing, however, has been a focus on what is known as "the link" between DVA and animal cruelty with regard to people of diverse genders and/or sexualities. The present article reports on a study of 503 people living in either Australia or the United Kingdom, who reported on both their intimate human relationships and their relationships with animals, including relationships that were abusive. In terms of "the link," a fifth of respondents who had experienced violence or abuse also reported that animal cruelty had been perpetuated by the violent or abusive partner. Statistical interactions were found between having witnessed animal cruelty perpetrated by a partner, gender and sexuality, and both psychological distress and social connectedness. Female participants who had witnessed animal cruelty reported greater psychological distress and lower levels of social support, and both lesbian and bisexual participants who had witnessed animal cruelty reported lower levels of social support. The article concludes by considering the implications of these findings for future research and service provision.

No abstract

The prevalence of animals in society, and recognition of the multiplicity of roles they play in human social life, has invoked significant interest from certain subsections of the social sciences. However, research in this area, to date, tends to be at an empirical and inherently psychological level. It is the contention of the current article that we need to redress this imbalance if we are to create a legitimate space wherein sociology can be used to investigate human-animal relations/interactions. In order to achieve this, an examination of the foundations of sociological thought is needed. This is explored in the current article through the use of one substantive, highly topical, subject in human-animal studies: the human-animal abuse ‘link.’