In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Notes Chapter 1 Making Misery 1. I do not address harms by nonhuman animals, which I venture requires a different theoretical approach. The analysis also excludes acts of nature (e.g., fatal lightning strikes) where human activity is, arguably, not implicated. 2. Cultural and other social forces influence which harms cause us concern and which actions we even call harms (see Butler 2004). The labeling of an action as harm is a socially contingent process (S. Cohen [1972] 2002; Loseke 2003). Whereas I grant victims privileged status as classifiers of harm, the process whereby they do the classifying is always socially mediated and problematic. 3. However, where victims lack or are denied the capacity to express their suffering, this approach may not yield justice. I return to this serious issue in the concluding chapter of the book. 4. Wieviorka (2009, chap. 3) observes that the call for a study of harm has as its context the decline of the nation-state. If this view is correct , the plea of critical criminologists to move beyond the study of state-designated harms has in effect been answered by historical events. 5. As Beccaria put it, “The true measure of crimes is . . . the harm done to society” ([1764] 1963, 64). 6. Friedrichs and Schwartz (2007) consider the practical, academic implications of trading criminology for zemiology, such as dim prospects for funding and being taken seriously. 7. I use the female pronoun when referring to the harm agent as a purposive alternative to male-centric language, except in chapter 5 on intimate partner violence. There I use the male pronoun, given the predominance of men among batterers. 8. I exclude from “unreflective harms” those of which the actor has no knowledge. Admittedly, a fine line divides harming unknowingly and harming unreflectively. 9. Furthermore, I know of no study of boys’ torture of nonhuman animals “for fun,” although anecdotal evidence suggests that it is pervasive. 10. Neisser (2002) problematizes the reduction of persons to “targets” in wartime. I use the term target more generally, to mean the being who is harmed. 131 11. I use the terms “narratives” and “story” interchangeably, although the distinctions that some scholars make are compelling and useful. Some observe, for example, that one’s “personal” story draws on broader cultural narratives (see Frank 2010, 14). Chapter 2 We Are Written: A Narrative Framework of Harm 1. See for example Bruner (1990), Gergen and Gergen (1988), Kerby (1991), Linde (1993), O’Connor (2000), Polkinghorne (1988), Ricoeur (1984, 1985), Sarbin (1986), Schiffrin (1996), Somers (1994), and Wood and Rennie (1994). Chapter 3 Genocide, Harm of Harms 1. In 1948 the United Nations defined genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” (United Nations 1948). 2. Sampson, Raudenbush and Earls (1997) propose that residents of neighborhoods who perceive themselves as collectively capable to solving collective problems prevent crime. Residents’ perceptions, and not collective efficacy as would-be offenders construct it, are related to crime. 3. See, for example, Alvarez (1997); Browning (1993); Fox and Levin (1998); Freire (1970); Huggins, Haritos-Fatouros, and Zimbardo (2002); Kelman (1973); Scheper-Hughes and Bourgois (2004); and Young (2003). 4. Hatzfeld provides only first names of the Rwandan killers. 5. “Like wolves they flung themselves in packs of eight or ten again and again on their enemies, and little by little actually began to thrash them [opponents of his National Socialist German Workers’ Party] out of the hall” (Hitler [1925] 1999, 505). Chapter 4 Institutionalized Harm through Meat Eating 1. These thirty interviews supplement the thirty used to study penal harm (see chapter 6). 2. Research participants are referred to by assigned pseudonyms. Notes 132 Chapter 5 Intimate Partner Violence: A Familiar Stranger 1. The ten countries in the sample were Bangladesh, Brazil, Ethiopia, Japan, Namibia, Peru, Samoa, Serbia and Montenegro, Thailand, and the United Republic of Tanzania. 2. A constructionist approach to power and powerlessness is consistent with the phenomenon of battering by persons of apparent privilege. 3. Renzetti (1992) studied IPV among lesbians; Cruz and Firestone (1998) among gay men. In these two...


Additional Information

Related ISBN
MARC Record
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.