A book analyzing animal abuse and related issues from a sociological perspective. The author, Clifton P. Flynn, is a family sociologist.

Preface

The preface briefly explains what led him to write the book. His spouse gave him The Sexual Politics of Meat, and reading it revealed the interconnections between animal abuse and abuse of women. This prompted him to connect his specialty, family sociology, with animal abuse, leading to research on domestic violence and animal abuse.

Chapter 1. The Importance of Studying Animal Abuse

Defines animal abuse, examines why academia has neglected violence against animals, and explains why researchers, legal professionals, psychiatrists, policymakers, and society as a whole should care.

To focus initially on direct, intentional cruelty, the author introduces Frank R. Ascione’s definition: “socially unacceptable behavior that intentionally causes unnecessary pain, suffering, distress, or death.” One problem is that this excludes factory farming, animal experimentation, hunting, and so on from the category of abuse. (Chapters 5 and 6 introduce broader definitions.)

Arluke and Luke (1997) offer these reasons for the lack of attention to animal abuse:

Animals are considered less important than humans.
Other issues were studied first, pushing animal research down the list of priorities.
Because only a tiny fraction of cases are reported, the public tends to underestimate their frequency.
Animal abuse is viewed as individual deviance rather than a social or structural problem.

The author adds two more:

Existing cultural practices such as hunting, fishing, and eating meat are excessively tolerant of violence against animals.
Animals and human infants cannot speak for themselves against systematic discrimination and exploitation.

Nevertheless, we should pay attention to animal abuse for these reasons:

As serious antisocial behavior, it can help identify troubled children or families.
It occurs relatively frequently.
It is often a symptom of other mental disorders.
It is closely associated with domestic violence.
It is closely associated with interpersonal violence.
Enormous numbers of animals are abused.
Ending animal abuse is an important step toward eliminating all forms of violence.

It is disappointing that five of these seven reasons concern effects on human society rather than animals themselves. This alone might suggest that the author cares more about humans, but that is not the case. From Chapter 5 through the final Chapter 7, he repeatedly emphasizes that animal abuse matters in its own right, independently of considerations about humans.

Chapter 2. Sociological Approaches to Understanding Animal Abuse

Early research on domestic violence tended to focus too heavily on individuals. This approach had three problems:

Studying only extreme cases fitting a profile missed many forms of domestic violence.
It involved circular reasoning (“Why does he beat his spouse?” / “Because he’s crazy.” / “How do we know he’s crazy?” / “He beats his spouse.”). (“Crazy” is the wording of the original.)
Individually focused profiling struggled to distinguish abusers from non-abusers.

Animal abuse research initially passed through a similar phase, focusing excessively on individual abusers. The author argues that, as with domestic violence, understanding animal abuse requires attention to social context.

The first variable is gender, said to be the most important variable in animal abuse. The overwhelming majority of perpetrators are male, regardless of nationality or age. The sole exception is hoarding: three-quarters of animal hoarders are women, generally middle-aged or older, usually single, widowed or divorced, and consequently often living alone (Patronek, 1996, 2008). Suggested explanations for the predominance of men include male socialization, social dominance, and women’s greater sensitivity, as an oppressed group, to the oppression of another group, animals. (Although the book does not mention it, Simon Baron-Cohen’s autism research suggests that some biological factors contribute to men’s tendency toward lower empathy than women’s. I wonder whether this might also be related.)

The second variable is age. As with other criminal behavior, abuse of animals is most frequent from late adolescence to early adulthood.

Next is socioeconomic status. Abuse occurs across all classes, but is more frequent among lower-status groups.

Next is childhood socialization. Children who experience domestic violence are more likely to abuse animals, and those who witness abuse among peers often imitate it. Adults generally abuse animals alone, whereas children often do so in front of peers.

Fifth is power and inequality. Perpetrators usually abuse animals smaller and weaker than themselves, because they are easy to abuse rather than because the animals harmed them. Animals are often treated as outside moral consideration.

Next are social-structural factors, principally family composition and the criminal justice system. First, family composition: stress at home, especially stress caused by a companion animal, can lead to violence against that animal and family members. As for criminal justice, obstacles to legislation and enforcement include public ambivalence toward animals, difficulties defining animal abuse, and its inadequate treatment as a minor offense.

Sixth is socialization and norms. The author points out humans’ contradictory attitudes toward animals. Most notably, many people support animal rights to some extent while retaining a preference for eating meat. This diet sustains factory farming, one of the cruelest forms of animal abuse, and factory farming is unlikely to disappear as long as meat eating persists. Traditional Western philosophical and religious views of animals are also problematic.

The author criticizes Western tradition for reinforcing a utilitarian view of animals, citing Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation, but this seems potentially misleading. Bentham, the father of utilitarianism, was the first philosopher to characterize “human dominion” as human tyranny over animals. Singer likewise argues for equal consideration of animals and criticizes Western tradition from a utilitarian perspective. In other words, Singer does criticize Western tradition in Animal Liberation (Chapter 5), but certainly not for reinforcing a “utilitarian perspective.” He argues that such a perspective is needed.

Chapter 3. Connections Between Animal Abuse and Violence Against Humans

There is little doubt about the association between violence against humans and animal abuse. In domestic violence, evidence links physical and sexual abuse with animal abuse. Threats to harm companion animals are also used to force compliance with sexual violence or prevent disclosure to others.

A study of university students (Henry, 2004) found differences between men and women who witnessed animal abuse in childhood. As adults, men tended to have weaker bonds with animals, and women stronger ones. Perhaps men identify with abusers, while women identify with animal victims.

Children who witness abuse often suffer greater psychological distress than those who commit it. The author offers three possible explanations. First, children committing abuse may already have traits making them less affected by it. Second, they may have retrospectively justified their cruelty. Finally, witnesses may experience a greater burden because of their helplessness to stop it.

Animal abuse is also associated with wife beating. Among battered women with companion animals, 50–75% report that their animals are also abused or killed. Similar patterns occur across racial and cultural groups.

Women without children tend to depend more emotionally on companion animals. Women with companion animals therefore tend to endure domestic abuse longer, fearing their partners will harm the animals if they leave. If a partner has already abused an animal, this fear becomes greater, and women endure violence against themselves even longer.

Animal abuse is associated not only with domestic violence but also with bullying, various forms of juvenile delinquency, adult crime, and other violent or antisocial behavior.

Chapter 4. “The Link”

The original chapter title is “The Link.” In the context of the chapter, this means a causal relationship, as distinct from an association.

Earlier chapters examined only associations between animal abuse and violence against humans. This chapter examines the “link” hypothesis: a causal connection by which animal abuse, usually in childhood, leads to violence against humans in adulthood.

Studies supporting and criticizing this hypothesis both have theoretical and methodological flaws, making firm conclusions difficult. Nevertheless, whether childhood animal abuse causes adult interpersonal violence or is merely correlated with it, the need to attend to childhood animal abuse is clear.

Three principal issues must be addressed to advance the link hypothesis:

A specific, consistent definition of animal abuse
Research based on representative samples
Longitudinal research

Methodologically, we also need to specify exactly when and which forms of childhood animal abuse are problematic. Ethically, we need to consider stigmatization resulting from false positives. More precisely, this combines two problems. First, false positives: abusing animals in childhood does not necessarily mean committing violent crimes against humans as an adult. Second, stigmatization: demonizing children who abuse animals.

The author’s view is that false positives become an ethical problem because of the tendency to label and punish these children as future violent criminals. Instead of stigmatizing and punishing them, we should help them and work to improve their self-esteem and self-confidence.

Chapter 5. Theoretical Perspectives on Animal Abuse

Chapter 5 introduces four theoretical approaches: 1) feminist theories, 2) symbolic interactionism, 3) a feminist-interactionist explanation, and 4) Agnew’s social-psychological theory.

Feminism

According to feminist theories, animal abuse is part of a structure of male domination over others, including women and children. Patriarchal societies encourage dominant men to use violence to control others; within this arrangement, animals and vulnerable men are regarded as feminized.

Adams (1995) describes nine strategies through which men use animal abuse to control women (see The Sexual Politics of Meat):

Displaying their power
Teaching women submission
Isolating women from social relationships and help from others
Expressing anger at women’s independence
Creating fear by abusing animals
Preventing women from leaving by threatening to abuse animals if they do
Punishing women who leave and return by abusing animals
Forcing women to participate in abuse
Affirming their power

Symbolic interactionism

According to symbolic interactionism, interactions between individuals and others are mediated by symbols and their interpretation. Actors give meaning to interpretations according to their roles, and engage in role-taking to imagine what their actions mean to others.

Traditional symbolic-interactionist interpretations of animal abuse focused on two things:

How adults who abuse animals account for their behavior and redefine it in more acceptable terms
How people involved in animal abuse in various ways perceive their own behavior

Sanders (1993, 1999) and Alger and Alger (1997, 1999) propose a third approach departing from tradition: animals, as well as humans, are subjects of symbolic interaction. The author has also conducted research from this perspective. Many battered women in his study said their companion animals became distressed, tried to protect them, and sought to comfort them after beatings.

As mentioned, symbolic interactionism emphasizes interpretation and meaning. From this perspective, the author introduces Sykes and Matza’s (1957) neutralization theory. According to it, deviants do not reject social norms; they neutralize criticism through various rationalizations:

Denial of the victim (they deserved it, so they are not victims)
Denial of responsibility (it was an accident, mistake, or irresistible force, so it was not my responsibility)
Denial of injury (that was not really harm)
Appeal to higher loyalties (my small group’s rules matter more than society’s norms, and I merely follow them)
Condemnation of the condemners (my critics have done worse things themselves)

Arluke (2002) argues that not all adolescent animal abuse has impulsive or pathological causes. It may be instrumental or normative behavior aimed at obtaining something society values. It may be dirty play and imitation of adults, through which adolescents gain adult-like power and challenge authority.

I did not quite understand this from the book alone, so I looked up Arnold Arluke’s Just a Dog - Animal Cruelty, Self, and Society. “Dirty play” contrasts with “ordinary play,” meaning children’s everyday play. Dirty play means forms of play adults prohibit, such as sexual jokes, violent speech or acts, or racist remarks. Adults judge these behaviors childish and immature, but children perceive them as “deep play,” challenging social norms made by people with greater authority (adults and teachers). I understood animal abuse as potentially an extreme form of boys’ characteristic performances of toughness and recklessness.

A feminist-interactionist explanation

The third theoretical approach combines the previous two into a feminist-interactionist perspective. Traditional animal abuse research has tended to focus on humans rather than animals themselves, which this approach regards as inappropriate. It treats animals themselves as subjects of moral consideration.

George Herbert Mead, the founder of symbolic interactionism, regarded communication through conversation as essential, assuming a chain of language–thought–symbolic interaction. However, Sanders (1993, 1999, 2003), Alger and Alger (1997, 1999), and Irvine (2004) argue that animals can also engage in symbolic interaction.

If animals are treated as active participants in symbolic interaction, their abuse becomes an independently important issue because they are subjects capable of fear and suffering. For example, animal abuse within a household is itself a form of domestic violence, even when no spouse or child is abused.

A social-psychological theory of animal abuse

The final perspective is Robert Agnew’s (1998) social-psychological theory of animal abuse. Agnew also argues that animal abuse should be a moral concern independently of its relationship to humans.

Agnew defines animal abuse as:

Any behavior that contributes to an animal’s pain, death, or otherwise threatens its welfare

This is much broader than Ascione’s definition temporarily adopted in Chapter 1:

Socially unacceptable behavior that intentionally causes unnecessary pain, suffering, distress, or death

Agnew’s definition has several advantages. It includes factory farming and animal experimentation as animal abuse. It permits defining abuse independently of current social beliefs, which are generally shaped by the most powerful groups. It also applies to acts that are not crimes.

Drawing on earlier research, social learning theory, and Sykes and Matza’s (1957) neutralization theory, Agnew proposes three primary factors increasing an individual’s likelihood of abusing animals:

Ignorance of or insensitivity to the consequences of abuse
A belief that abuse can be justified
A perception that its benefits outweigh its costs

Secondary factors influence these directly or indirectly:

Individual personality traits (impulsiveness, empathy, self-control, and so on)
Socialization
Strain or stress
Level of social control (I don’t know what this means)
The nature of the animal

Finally, Agnew says structural factors associated with individuals’ social positions—gender, age, race, education, occupation, place of residence, and so on—also affect animal abuse. Social position sometimes acts directly, but generally works indirectly by affecting the secondary factors listed above.

The author evaluates Agnew’s approach most favorably.

Chapter 6. Recommendations for Policy and Professionals, and Future Research

Having analyzed the issue, Chapter 6 offers practical recommendations.

Advice for legal professionals and policymakers: Improve animals’ legal status and strengthen animal abuse laws and penalties. Courts handling domestic violence should pay more attention to animal abuse, particularly using perpetrators’ animal abuse as grounds for protective measures such as restrictions on contact with family members.
Advice for clinicians and social workers: Include animal-abuse assessment questions in hiring. Assess clients’ relationships with companion animals in detail. Shelters should cooperate with animal shelters or provide their own animal accommodation. Clinicians and counselors should ask child clients about their experience of animal abuse.
Advice for educators: School staff should remember the connection between animal abuse and bullying perpetration or victimization. Teaching respect for all life can help prevent violence among students. Universities are introducing human–animal studies courses for undergraduates and graduate students.

On future research, the author offers these views:

Conceptual clarification must consider which behaviors constitute abuse, whether psychological abuse is included, whether intent matters, which species (for example, mammals) to consider, whether institutional abuse is included, and whether customary practices count as abuse.
Measurement and sampling: Valid, reliable measures of abuse are needed. Standardized measures are essential for comparing studies. National statistics comparable to those for domestic violence are also necessary.
Qualitative research: Diverse qualitative research matters alongside quantitative studies.
Theory: Animal abuse is closely related to violence against people, especially domestic violence, so much can be learned from that research. Other relevant research should also be consulted. Finally, we need broader definitions of animal abuse (such as Agnew’s), and wide-ranging research from that perspective.

Chapter 7. Expanding the Sociological Imagination

Scholars are gradually recognizing that earlier research was anthropocentric and speciesist. Researchers such as Agnew, mentioned earlier, are already working beyond these limitations. The author concludes that sociology has traditionally exposed discrimination and oppression based on gender, race, class, age, sexual orientation, and more, and should now extend its scope to animals.