Reacting to Invasive Species: The Construction of a Moral Panic over Burmese Pythons

Abstract

A variety of animals occupy the bad side of the Arluke-Sanders (1996) socio-zoological scale, including "invasives." We contribute to the literature on animals and social problems by examining the societal reaction toward invasive Burmese pythons, focusing on the claims-making process that culminated in the construction of a moral panic about these snakes. We seek to enhance sociological and public knowledge about social problems involving invasive species-a category of non-human animals, plants, and organisms that attract significant scientific, political, and public attention. We draw from the work of, among others, Arluke and Sanders (1996), Nagy and Johnson (2013) and Jerolmack (2008) and argue that problematizing some animals, especially invasive species, involves the use of claims about ecological and physical harms. However, these claims do not come from the same sources or arouse similar responses. For strategic purposes, claims-makers may rely on assertions that an animal is physically threatening, rather than ecologically threatening. They may emphasize the dangerousness or lethality of the animal to create fear and generate momentum toward a desired policy response, typically involving control or eradication of the animal. The goal is to restore the boundary between humans and nature which the animal's presence has disrupted.

Misunderstandings of science and ethics in the moral panic over cats: reply to Crespin et al. 2020

“…Such panics are brought on when individuals and groups are worked into a frenzy about what they believe is an existential threat, often demonizing and posing severe solutions to the perceived threat, human or animal. This is often amplified by media coverage that plays up the panic (Cohen 2011; Maloney & Unnithan 2019). Moral panics have occurred over immigration, violent video games, Islamic extremism, etc.…”