Abstract
In charting out the ‘four ways’ of eco-global criminology, this paper discusses the importance of recognising and acting in regards to the differences evident in (1) ways of being (ontology), (2) ways of knowing (epistemology), (3) ways of doing (methodology) and (4) ways of valuing (axiology). The paper assumes and asserts that global study of environmental crime is essential to the green criminology project, and particularly an eco-global criminology approach. Specific instances of criminal and harmful activity therefore need to be analysed in the context of broad international social, political, economic and ecological processes. The article outlines the key ideas of eco-global criminology, a perspective that argues that global study must always be inclusive of voices from the periphery and margins of the world’s metropolitan centres, and critical of the social relations that sustain the epistemological as well as material realities and legacies of colonialism and imperialism. Yet, in doing so, there arise many paradoxes and conundrums that likewise warrant close attention.
Highlights
One of the outstanding contributions of ‘southern theory’ (Carrington, Hogg and Sozzo 2016; Connell 2007) is that it propels us to consider the importance of the periphery in assessing knowledge and experiences that too often are interpreted solely from a universalising ‘northern’ perspective
Eco‐global criminology refers to an analytical framework that focuses on the interrelated matters of the ecological, the transnational, and justice
In charting out the ‘four ways’ of eco‐global criminology, this article discusses the importance of recognising and acting in regards to the differences evident in (1) ways of being, (2) ways of knowing, (3) ways of doing and (4) ways of valuing. In discussing these various ‘ologies’, the paper grapples with the difficulties posed by attempts to be inclusive of voices from the periphery, including the dispossessed, the young and the elderly, and especially those that are critical of the social relations that sustain the epistemological as well as the material realities and legacies of colonialism and imperialism
Summary
One of the outstanding contributions of ‘southern theory’ (Carrington, Hogg and Sozzo 2016; Connell 2007) is that it propels us to consider the importance of the periphery in assessing knowledge and experiences that too often are interpreted solely from a universalising ‘northern’ perspective. Arising from the eco‐global perspective is an enhanced appreciation of the need for collaboration involving individuals, groups and countries from different geographical regions Such collaborative efforts are vital in regards to research, investigation and exposure of environmental harm and victimisation. In charting out the ‘four ways’ of eco‐global criminology, this article discusses the importance of recognising and acting in regards to the differences evident in (1) ways of being (ontology), (2) ways of knowing (epistemology), (3) ways of doing (methodology) and (4) ways of valuing (axiology) In discussing these various ‘ologies’, the paper grapples with the difficulties posed by attempts to be inclusive of voices from the periphery, including the dispossessed, the young and the elderly, and especially those that are critical of the social relations that sustain the epistemological as well as the material realities and legacies of colonialism and imperialism. The article uses certain exemplars to illustrate the problems and limitations of trying to apply notions of ‘inclusion’ uncritically and without due regard for context and contestation
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
