UNDERSTANDING THE SOCIOECONOMICAL CONSTRUCTION OF NONNATIVE
SPECIES
By
Christina M. Leshko

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Sociology – Master of Arts
2013

ABSTRACT
UNDERSTANDING THE SOCIOECONOMICAL CONSTRUCTION OF NONNATIVE
SPECIES
By
Christina M. Leshko
In this study, I seek to evaluate the relationship between the classification of a species as
“invasive” and the rhetorical framework used by biologists/ecologists in their academic abstracts.
The methods for this study include: a classification of language used in abstracts from the Web
of Science database, a statistical analysis of the categories from the analysis, and a brief review
of three case examples. “Invasive species” includes those organisms that have an impact on
human health, the environment, or the economy (invasivespeciesinfo.gov, 2011). I posit that
economic relationships will be the most commonly used discourse to frame nonnative species
research, based on a social constructionist framework and grounded theory analysis of
contemporary discourse. While a statistical analysis of the discourse used to describe invasive
species in academic abstracts did not reveal any significant results, organisms classified as
“invasive” have an association with an economic impact, indicated by the case examples.

	
  

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge my advisors, Drs. Linda Kalof and Thomas Dietz, my committee,
Drs. Geoffrey Habron and Kyle Whyte, in addition to my colleagues in the Animal Studies
Writing group, for their support with this project.

iii	
  

TABLE OF CONTENTS
	
  
	
  
	
  
LIST OF TABLES

v

INTRODUCTION
Background

1
4

METHODS
Dataset
Measures
Statistical Analysis

9
9
11
13

RESULTS

14

CASE EXAMPLES
Nile Perch
Nutria
Zebra Mussels
Case Example Summary

15
15
16
16
17

SIGNIFICANCE

18

DISCUSSION

19

REFERENCES

24

	
  

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Web of Science Search Results showing the top five groups for each analysis
category.

9

Table 2: Descriptive statistics of select variables used in logistic regression.

11

v	
  

INTRODUCTION

Epistemological arguments regarding the social construction of nature draw attention to
the influence of culture and politics in establishing scientific knowledge. Seemingly objective,
scientifically founded assertions of truth, such as how biophysical science portrays the workings
of the natural world are, to a certain extent, socially constructed interpretations; nature is “…not
simply something out there that scientific knowledge more or less faithfully mirrors” (Proctor
1998, p. 353). Interrogating interpretations of nature, and more specifically, constructions of
invasive species, requires a critical realist approach, recognizing not only, as relativists argue,
that knowledge is socially constructed, but also accepting that there are natural laws independent
of our social constructions (Proctor 1998, p. 362). Critical realism recognizes that perception is a
key factor in how humans acquire knowledge and that subjective perceptions of our external
world largely shape how we understand and interact with it. Thus, much of the knowledge we
generally accept requires critical reflection on those assumptions we hold to be self-evident
truths. Invasive species are an excellent example of a social construction, as they have significant
and measurable impacts, yet our understanding and perceptions of them are largely shaped by
social forces.
The term “invasive species” first began gaining popularity in the 1990s and has rapidly
risen to the most frequently used term for nonnative plants, animals and microorganisms in the
English corpus (Michel et al., 2010). The category of invasive species encompasses organisms
ranging from the microscopic avian malaria to the water hyacinth – popular in garden ponds – to
the domestic cat (Lowe, Browne, Boudjelas, and Poorter, 2000). The definition of invasive
species is equally disparate, even in the discipline of ecology, with the actual meaning of the
term still contested. For example, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines
1	
  

an invasive species as: “1) non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and 2) a
species whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm
to human health” (invasivespeciesinfo.gov, 2011). This is an impact-centered definition. In
contrast, Craig (2010) defines invasive species as representing those organisms “that have taken
up residence outside of their normal geographic range, either through natural or anthropogenic
mechanisms” (p. 2127), a significantly more location-specific definition. Colautti and MacIsaac
(2004) take yet another approach, proposing a neutral terminology with a definitional framework
developed from “current models that break the invasion process into a series of consecutive,
obligatory stages” (p. 135), resulting in an “invasive” classification only used in the end-stages
of environmental impact.
Prior to the 1990s, “exotic” and “introduced” were the most common terms used to
describe foreign species. Regardless of biology, what changes for nonnative organisms when
using these different terms is the conceptual framework. Robbins’s (2004) review of the cultural
development of invasives found that, “it is not species but sociobiological networks that are
invasive” (p.140), which implies that the designation and descriptions of these organisms are not
wholly ecological. Sagoff (2000) further supports the idea that invasives are socially constructed
by drawing attention to the large numbers of nonnative U.S. agricultural plant species that are
cultivated, genetically modified, and left to cross-fertilize with native and wild plants. These
crops, along with their livestock counterparts, are rarely investigated for the cultural and
ecological impact they have on the environment as nonnative species.
My study investigates the relationship between the classification of a species as
“invasive” and the rhetorical framework utilized by biologists and ecologists in their academic
abstracts. Using grounded theory to explore existing studies of invasives, I found the conflicting

2	
  

definitional frameworks, combined with the relatively recent application of the term “invasive”
in academic literature, indicate that further investigation is needed. I seek to examine the
mechanisms contributing to such inconsistencies and also provide supporting evidence for the
case of invasives as a social construction. While Subramiman (2001), Larson (2005), and
Robbins (2004) clearly demonstrate the ways discourse is utilized to socially construct a false
perception of invasive species, I seek to investigate the potential for underlying, economicallydriven mechanisms to use invasives as scapegoats for other forms of environmental degradation.
Some of the most well known studies of nonnative species describe the organism under
investigation as influencing a new or pre-existing economic relationship (Garcia-Llorente et al.,
2008). Invasives are presented in the literature as both a means of capital accumulation and an
impediment to it, yet it is unclear how a nonnative’s environmental impact affects its economic
standing and the management strategies utilized to exert control over it. Drawing on a social
constructionist framework and a grounded theory analysis of contemporary discourse, I posit that
economic relationships will be the most commonly used discourse to frame nonnative species
research.
Background
The rhetoric surrounding invasive species has been documented as constructing images of
science-fiction aliens, militaristic enemies, and dangerous foreign nationals/immigrants (Larson,
2005; Subramaniam, 2001; Sagoff, 2000 and Paretti,1998). To illustrate, titles of academic
articles from a search of “invasives” in the Web of Science database include: “As invasive
species threat intensifies, U.S. steps up fight” (Simberloff and Schmitz, 1999); “Invasive
Species: The Search for Solutions” (Dybas, 2004); “Friend or Foe? Invasive Species and Public
Green Space in Toronto” (Foster and Sandberg, 2004); “Costs of Alien Invasive Species in

3	
  

Sweden” (Gren, Isacs, and Carlsson, 2009); “American Perceptions of Immigrant and Invasive
Species: Strangers on the Land” (Bruce, 2009). Newspaper articles take even greater liberties,
frequently neglecting to indicate that the topic of the article is actually related to an ecological
phenomenon:
Alien Invasion: They’re green, they’re mean, and they may be taking over a park
or preserve near you (Cheater 1992); Aliens Reeking Havoc; The Invasion of the
Woodland Soil Snatchers (Stewart 2001); Native species invaded (ABC News
1998); It’s a Cancer (Verrengia 1999a);10 Creepy strangler climbs Oregon’s
least-wanted list (Brinckman 2001); U.S. can’t handle today’s tide of immigrants
(Yeh 1995); Alien Threat (Bright 1998); Biological Invaders Sweep In (Enserink
1999); Congress Threatens Wild Immigrants (Weiner 1996); Invasive Species:
Pathogens of Globalization. (Bright 1999) (cited in Subramaniam, 2001, p.28).
The tone of the writing in such articles is frequently illustrative of xenophobic sentiments as,
“Articles invariably end with a nostalgic lament to the destruction of native forests, and the loss
of nature when it was pure, untainted, and untouched by the onslaught of foreign invasions”
(Subramaniam, 2001, p.34). Subramaniam (2001) demonstrates how the “…xenophobic rhetoric
that surrounds immigrants is extended to plants and animals” in the construction of invasives and
attributes this “fear of the foreign” to increased globalization (p.29). The “fever pitch” of
international trade, travel, and consumption, she argued, is resulting in a counter-movement,
favoring the preservation of national cultures (Subramaniam, 2001, p.26). This countermovement emerges in the biological literature through discussions of “ecological memory” and
“ecological restoration,” which utilize a preservationist discourse and values the environment as
it was in its “original” state, original being defined as the time the dominant culture was formed

4	
  

(Schaefer, 2009). While the rhetoric may differ, social scientists and ecologists concur in their
understanding of invasives: “Invaders are increasingly evident around the world as the growing
mobility of people and trade goods accelerates a longstanding process of contact and
introduction” (Robbins, 2004, p.139).
Both Robbins and Subramaniam suggest that the construction of “dangerous alien
invasive species” is, in part, a reflection of societal fears that (human) immigrants will “storm
our borders” (Hartmann, 1998, p.114), reproducing exponentially and consuming local
resources. These sentiments clearly overlap with those posited in population ecology: “Resource
scarcities, often exacerbated by population growth, undermine the quality of life, confidence in
government, and threaten to destabilize many parts of the globe” (as cited in Hartmann, 1998,
p.114). Invasives are painted similarly to citizens of developing countries: hyper-fertile,
adaptive, and responsible for the destruction of natural environments (Subramaniam, 2001).
Both are simultaneously the recipients of xenophobic “pushback” and a result of widespread
globalization. Both are also frequently represented as the cause of environmental degradation,
while the actual causes of environmental degradation, such as the global capitalist market’s drive
to maintain profitability through expansion (Gould et al., 2004) are thus mostly ignored in
mainstream literature. Larson (2005) suggests that addressing the underlying causes of invasion
is avoided, as it would raise uncomfortable questions about our role as co-conspirators with
invasives in our “urge to consume, to progress, to spread, and to travel” (p.499).
Larson (2005) examined the militaristic discourse framing invasives as the “enemy” and
found that the metaphors used to describe invasives “harbor inaccuracies,” which contribute not
only to the public’s misunderstanding of nonnative species, but also to misperceptions by
conservationists themselves. This discursive framework also invokes “militaristic ways of

5	
  

thinking that are inconsistent with a sustainable relation between humans and the natural world”
(Larson, 2005, p.496). Similar to the rhetoric depicting nonnative species as immigrants, the
militaristic discourse creates a polarized “us vs. them” relationship. Placing responsibility on the
variously defined, yet consistently foreign, “other” does not rectify native species extinction or
the degradation of habitats; it only continues to perpetuate a culture of environmental
scapegoating (Bobertz, 1995).
These fears and anxieties projected onto invasives, like those associated with global
population and migration, often include false assumptions. Many ecologists have demonstrated
that both the introduction and the spread of invasives are solely the result of human interference
in previously undisturbed ecosystems (Larson, 2005; Foster and Sandberg, 2004). Ballast water
carried in international ocean liners (Dybas, 2004), packing crates used in freight shipments
(Simberloff and Schmitz, 1999), the process of urbanization (Schaefer, 2009) and a myriad of
other trade, tourist, and recreational activities have been linked to cases of species invasion
(Perrings et al., 2005; Meyerson and Money, 2007). Thus it is not necessarily the species, but the
human impact that frequently leads to an ecosystem’s vulnerability to invasion. Human
interference provides the launching point from which several non-native species have
subsequently entered and devastated communities and ecosystems.
Focusing on invasives as the enemy masks the fact that our fears of deteriorating
ecosystems and disappearing species are largely due to contemporary methods of production in
industries around the world. These “treadmill of production” practices favor economic efficiency
“as an unquestioned social good, although many of its externalities are treated piecemeal by
various social agencies” (Schnaiberg, 1980, p. 215). Thus it can be inferred that the economic
methods and practices mentioned previously take precedence over any risk of biodiversity loss

6	
  

through introduction of non-native biota; capitalism prevails. The rhetorical analyses of the
discourse surrounding invasives by Subrahmiam, Larson, and Robbins further point to the use of
nonnative species as scapegoats for larger social problems; a misconstrual of seemingly objective
biological facts through discourse (mis)use transforms invasives into scapegoats.
Similar to the biblical scapegoat who, through ritual, receives the sins of the Children of
Israel and bears them away into the desert wilderness leaving the people cleansed of sin, the
invasive scapegoat, through ritual, scientific investigation, absorbs the worries and uncertainty

1

of the global community and bears them away through its own dissolution. Eradication of nonnatives is achieved via costly environmental management programs, yet permits communities to
continue believing, whether consciously or unconsciously, that their own environmentallydetrimental practices can continue unchanged: “business as usual.” Both the biblical and invasive
scapegoats are the result of an active social construction, with unwanted thoughts and feelings
projected on to the nonhuman entity.
The scapegoating of invasives provides an opportunity for corporate and political
powerholders to direct attention away from real and urgent environmental problems. This
scapegoating is often subtle and is accepted without question by many societies as it falls within
the dominant human exemptionalist archetype: we rational (and often wealthy and often white)
humans know what is best –and worst- for the global environment (Curry 2011; Dunlap and
Catton, 1994). Even if societies were made aware of the intentional scapegoating of invasives it
would “… not necessarily result in a more informed, participatory, and critically aware
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
1

	
  Worries and uncertainty related to issues such as the effects of climate change, loss of

biodiversity, increasing deforestation, etc. are more deeply linked to concerns for how the planet
can possibly continue to sustain current rates of growth and consumption (Curry, 2011).

7	
  

citizenry” as the global powerholders “deploy science and the ‘symbols of science’ in ways that
constrain public debate and critical, balanced understanding of the strengths
and limitations of scientific knowledge” (Lahsen, 2005, p. 139).
Baskin (2002) asserts that, “in general, for every case of invasion some sector of society
makes a profit” (cited in Garcia-Llorente et al., 2008, p. 2970). This statement may seem
unlikely, as it is frequently the rhetoric of “costs” that accompany descriptions of nonnative
species. For example, Simpson (2004) states:
The total annual cost of invasive species to human societies worldwide can
therefore be estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars, including the
costs of control, detrimental effects on human health, and losses in agricultural
production and ecosystem services. This enormous sum far exceeds the combined
annual cost of all natural disasters (Munich Re Group 2004) (p. 613).
This rhetoric of “costs” also resonates with Gren, Isacs, and Carlsson (2009) as they argue that
the negative impacts of some invasive species, “…such as production losses resulting from alien
pests in agriculture or degradation of power plants and water treatment plants caused by zebra
mussels in the Great Lakes, have been documented in a number of studies since the 1960s”
(p.135). However, what becomes noticeably absent from both examples is a complementary
focus on the “profits” generated by and from nonnative species. The three case examples
following the statistical Results section presented later in this paper exemplify the complicated
relationship between profits, costs, and nonnative species and support Baskin’s claim that
nonnative species influence some sector of the economy, regardless of the valence of their
impact.

8	
  

METHODS
Dataset
The data source for this study is the Web of Science database, an online, searchable
archive of scholarly publications. Web of Science is a unique research platform that indexes over
100 years of both cited and citing works, enabling users to search across time, disciplines, and
journals of publication. It is recognized in the academic community as one of the top tools for
research and teaching. The benefits of using Web of Science include access to an “Analyze
Tool” that gives the user the ability to group search results and analyze and identify research
trends across sets of publications (wokinfo.com, 2011). Table 1 provides a summary of the
publication trends for the terms I used in this study.
Table 1. Web of Science Search Results showing the top five groups for each analysis category.
Search Term
Invasive
species

Funding
Source
NSF ⇒ ~3.5%
Australian
Research
Council ⇒
1.6%
NSERC of
Canada ⇒
0.7%
CNPQ ⇒ 0.6%
USDA ⇒ 0.6%

Exotic species

NSF ⇒ 2.5%
CNPQ ⇒ 0.7%

Publication
Years
Most papers
published from

Subject Areas

Env Sci
Ecology
⇒50.7%
2000 onwards. BD
Highest number Conservation
of papers
⇒ 17%
published
in 2010
Plant Science
(17.5%).
⇒12.8%
Marine
Freshwater Bio
⇒ 10.5%
Entomology ⇒
5.9%
Most papers
Env Sci
published from Ecology ⇒
46.1%
1997 onwards. Plant Science
Highest number ⇒ 11.1%
of
9	
  

Country of
Publication
US ⇒ 46.5%
Australia ⇒
9.8%
Canada ⇒
7.7%
France ⇒ 7.2%
England ⇒
5.6%
US ⇒ 43.4%
Australia ⇒
10.9%

Table 1 (cont’d)
Dept. of Energy pubs in 2006
⇒ 0.5%
(9.7%).
EU ⇒ 0.5%

Introduced
species

FEDEMIG ⇒
0.5%
Australian
Research
Council ⇒
1.5%
NSF ⇒ 1.3%
DST ⇒ 0.6%
Czech Republic
⇒ 0.4%
NSF of China
⇒ 0.4%

Most papers
published from
1986 onwards.

BD
Conservation
⇒ 10.9%
Marine
Freshwater Bio
⇒ 10.3%
Forestry ⇒
9.7%
Env Sci
Ecology ⇒
32.6%

Highest number Marine
of pubs in 2002 Freshwater Bio
⇒ 16.7%
(8.8%).
Entomology ⇒
16.3%
Plant Science
⇒ 11.9%
BD
Conservation
⇒ 10.5%

Canada ⇒
6.1%
England ⇒ 4.2
Franc ⇒ 3.8%
US ⇒ 37%

Australia ⇒
11.1%
Canada ⇒
7.1%
England ⇒
6.7%
France ⇒ 5%

The following terms were searched in the title and abstract of the publication: “invasive species,”
“exotic species,” and “introduced species.” “Exotic” and “introduced” serve as comparisons for
the term of interest: “invasive.” The results returned by each search of the database were
recorded and included: article title, author(s), year of publication, journal of publication, and
search term. All searches were run within a 48-hour period in November 2011. Abstracts
included in the search results were reviewed and independently coded to create three additional
categorical variables: Globalization Discourse, Species Classification, and Impact Attribution of
nonnative species (see Table 2).

10	
  

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of select variables used in logistic regression.
Economic
Impact

Globalization
Discourse

Not Present

N

14 (17.3%)
Species
Classification

Present

67 (82.7%)

81

Invasive

Exotic

18 (22.2%) 12
(14.8%)
Present

Introduced Multiple
9 (11.1%)

42 (51.8%)

81

Not Present

13 (16%)

68 (84%)

81

As Google Ngrams identified the rise of the term “invasive species” from 1990 onwards,
only those studies published between 1990 and 2011 were included in the dataset.
This is exploratory research, thus the minimum number of data points required for each
search term when running a logistic regression were included in the data set (Peduzzi, Concato,
Kemper, Holford, and Feinstein, 1996); the first 30 results returned by Web of Science, as sorted
by number of citations, were retained. This method was utilized to ensure that the studies with
the highest potential impact were included in the analysis.

Measures
The dependent variable is “Impact Attribution” and was constructed by reviewing each
abstract and determining how the author(s) framed nonnative species: as having an impact on
human health, the environment, and/or economic associations. For example, if an author cited
that several million dollars had been spent on eradicating a nonnative species, that abstract was
classified as “economic.” If an author discussed the declining health outcomes of a human
community after the introduction of an invasive, this was classified as “health.” (Note: only
impacts to human health were classified as “health”; impacts to non-human health were

11	
  

classified as “environmental”). I used critical discourse analysis to analyze the underlying
assumptions present in the language of the publication. Abstracts including more than one type
of classification were coded appropriately and also included in this analysis, as well as those
abstracts that did not attribute an impact. However, a “strength of classification” measure was
not developed. In order to use this variable as the dependent variable for a logistic regression,
“Impact Attribution” was recoded into “Economic Impact” with “1” indicating the presence of
an economic relationship in the abstract and “0” indicating no economic reference.
Independent variables utilized in this analysis include: Species Classification (invasive,
exotic, introduced, or multiple), search term (invasive, exotic, or introduced), year of publication,
journal of publication, and Globalization Discourse, a variable representing whether an abstract
included a reference to a global impact. As suggested earlier, the expectation was that
classification of a nonnative species as “invasive” was most likely to be tied to an economic
Impact Attribution. Thus, “exotic” and “introduced” served as comparative search terms. Species
Classification and Globalization Discourse were both developed through codification of the
abstracts. Species Classification is a categorical variable, developed due to apparent
inconsistencies between the search term and the discourse utilized by the authors in the written
abstract. Frequently, authors used multiple nonnative species terms in their abstract, which
varied from either the term used in the title of the publication or the search term. The Species
Classification variable captures inconsistencies between the search term and the term(s)
prescribed to nonnative species in the abstract. Globalization Discourse is a categorical variable
used to capture the global component of invasive species; if the abstract attributed the species
under investigation to multiple continents or used terms, such as “global,” “worldwide,”
“international,” etc. the abstract was coded as utilizing “Globalization Discourse.”

12	
  

Statistical Analysis
All statistical analyses were run using IBM SPSS Statistics 19. Logistic regression was
used to assess how well the set of categorical predictor variables (search term, year of
publication, journal of publication, Species Classification and Globalization Discourse)
explained the categorical dependent variable, Economic Impact. Multicollinearity of independent
variables was assessed using Pallant’s (2010) suggestion of running a multiple linear regression
and reviewing the collinearity statistics in the coefficients table. As all variables had tolerance
values greater than 0.1, the variables had low correlation within the model. Variables were not
highly correlated. The percent of missing data from this dataset was 10% (n=9), leaving a total of
81 abstracts for analysis. Outliers were assessed by comparing predictor variable means to the
5% Trimmed Mean, calculated in the descriptive table.

	
  

13	
  

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics are provided in Table 2. There were relatively few nonnative
species described as impacting human health, with only three abstracts referencing a measured
negative effect on the physical condition of individuals. Of the sample, 46.7% of authors used
multiple terms related to nonnative species in their abstract. A total of 15.6% of the abstracts
selected referenced an economic relationship, the same percentage that utilized globalization
discourse (there was no significant overlap between groups).
Direct logistic regression was performed to assess the impact of economic rhetoric on the
classification of a nonindigenous species. The model contained four independent, or predictor,
variables: Species Classification (invasive, exotic, introduced, or multiple), search term
(invasive, exotic, or introduced), year of publication, and Globalization Discourse. A logistic
regression of the sample with Economic Impact as the dependent variable contained nonsignificant results for the Omnibus tests of model coefficients (greater than .05); the Hosmer and
Lemeshow results, however, were significant (greater than .05, at 0.858). These results indicate
2

mixed support for the model. The model was not statistically significant x (7, N = 81) = 2.21, p
> .001, indicating that the model was unable to distinguish between abstracts utilizing an
economic discourse and those which did not. The Cox and Snell R Square (0.027) and
Nagelkerke R Square (.045), indicated that between 2.7% and 4.5% of the variability was
explained by this set of variables. All four of the independent variables were non-significant,
with year of publication the only variable having a positive B value, indicating that a later year of
publication increases the probability of economic impact rhetoric (with an odds ratio of .69).

	
  

14	
  

CASE EXAMPLES
The following three case examples provide insights into how perceptions of invasives are
developed, have broad applications and potentially shift over time. These species were chosen
based on the rich data available, as well as widespread public awareness of their various effects.

Nile Perch
The introduction of Nile perch in eastern central Africa in the 1950s is well known for its
destructive impact on the ecology of Lake Victoria, the world’s second largest body of fresh
water and source of the Nile River. The lake’s lengthy perimeter spans the countries of Uganda,
Tanzania, and Kenya. Nile perch has contributed to the extinction of over 200 endemic marine
species through heavy predation. Indirectly, their presence has led to increased deforestation and
soil erosion, as well as a significant increase in the growth of nonnative algae and water hyacinth
(Lowe et al., 2000). These indirect impacts are due to the extra wood required by locals to dry
the oily skin of Nile perch and the subsequent increase in aquatic nutrient levels from run-off.
Despite its significant environmental effects, the Nile perch is best known for its economic
impact. Originally introduced by white land-owners to counteract the severe drop in indigenous
fish species (such as tilapia), commercial exploitation of the Nile perch has usurped control of
the fishing industry from local small-town fishing communities, driving many traditional fish
traders into extreme poverty. The Nile perch market created new employment opportunities such
as low-wage processing and factory positions and resulted in perch fillets becoming Tanzania’s
top export to Europe (Sauper, 2004).

	
  

15	
  

Nutria
The nutria, also known as the water rat or coypu, is a large, semi-aquatic rodent native to South
America. This species was introduced to the US in the 1930s as part of the growing international
fur market. Nutria are frequently mistaken for beavers and therein lies their attraction: fashion
trends of the time favored long-haired, wild-fur garments and the coypu had several qualities
(coat, size, birth rate, etc.) that made them favorable for farming (nutria.com, 2007). Demand for
nutria fur kept prices high through the 1950s and led to their “controlled” introduction in Europe
and Asia. However, as fashion trends shifted to favoring leather and the international fur market
began to shrink in the 1980s, nutria “escaped” from abandoned farms and spread throughout US
coastal wetlands, destroying marshes by exceeding the local carrying capacity. As the market
price of pelts decreased, hunters and trappers began to lose interest, shifting their focus toward
more valuable raccoon and coyote pelts. In 2002 the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries developed a control strategy for this mammal, now viewed as a pest, via a new
incentive payment program for trappers (nutria.com, 2007).
Zebra Mussels
Originally native to eastern Europe, the zebra mussel has a long history of ocean-jumping;
making its debut “invasion” in Great Britain in 1824, the zebra mussel then spread to the
Netherlands (1827), Czech Republic (1893), Sweden (1920), Italy (1973), and across the Atlantic
ocean to the Great Lakes in the USA (1988), with its most recently reported introduction in
California (2008) (Hoddle, 2011). These invertebrates, which typically grow to the size of a
fingernail, are greatly feared for their potentially devastating economic impacts. Zebra mussels
are known to clog pipes, screens, and other water intake structures, increasing maintenance costs
for major corporate industries, such as water treatment and power plants. The organisms can also

	
  

16	
  

adversely affect recreational and tourist industries as zebra mussels frequently accumulate on
marine surfaces (docks, boat hulls, buoys, anchors, and beaches). The intense fear of zebra
mussels is evidenced by the costly advertisement campaign launched to limit their spread and
encourage recreational boaters to take precautions, such as hosing boats and emptying live wells
before moving between waterways. Like many other invasive species, the global spread of zebra
mussels have been linked to international trade, more specifically, the transfer of mussels
through ballast water discharged from thousands of transoceanic ships (Costello, Drake, and
Lodge, 2007). The damage to local ecologies, evidenced by the decline in native mussels through
attachment and competition for food, is greatly overshadowed by the damage to economies (i.e.,
the estimated $500 million spent annually to manage mussels). Focusing on the environmental
impacts of zebra mussels could also potentially draw attention to the positive ecological benefits
of zebra mussels, such as enhanced filtration rates and “improved water clarity, and reduc[tion
in] the eutrophication of polluted lakes” (Hoddle, 2011).
Case Example Summary
All three examples highlight the role of economics, and more specifically the role of
humans in their drive to expand the global capitalist market, prior to the introduction of a
nonnative species and subsequent ecological devastation. As discussed earlier, this emerges in
the rhetoric of both “costs” and “profits.” These case examples provide evidence of a
relationship between the classification of a species as “invasive” and the rhetorical framework
used by biologists and ecologists in their studies, yet the significance and strength of these
relationships requires further investigation. A larger sample size of abstracts and case examples
may provide further insight.

	
  

17	
  

SIGNIFICANCE
While Robbins, Larson, and Subramaniam have excelled in investigating the rhetoric and
“naturecultures” surrounding invasive species and their embeddedness in cultural frameworks
(Haraway, 1991), they approached the subject from a broad-based philosophical perspective,
reviewing those articles that contributed to their arguments non-empirically. Similar to other
classical and contemporary sociological theorists, they developed rich arguments that
incorporated the scholarship with which they were most familiar, but a quantitative review of the
literature had yet to be reported. For example, it is unclear exactly how many publications and
journals influenced these scholars in the construction of their arguments. Furthermore, there are
theoretical divides in the ecological and biological sciences and it may be unfair to lump such a
diverse body of researchers into the single category of “conservationists.” However, Robbins,
Larson, and Subraminiam have laid the groundwork for this and future systematic investigations
of the various discourses used to frame invasive species.

	
  

18	
  

DISCUSSION
Although my analysis of the discourse used to describe invasive species in academic
abstracts was not statistically significant, there remains a strong likelihood that organisms
classified as “invasive” in a capitalist, Western-dominated world have an affiliation with an
economic impact. This is evident from the case examples described. However, interrogating the
discourse in abstracts may not reveal underlying, systemic relationships. For example, Scarce
(1999) documents that funding plays a major role in the politics of biological and ecological
research, as only those proposals consistent with the goals and mission of the funding agency
receive financial support. His argument is consistent with foundational Weberian views of
bureaucracy because institutions frequently operate to further economic and political goals. It is
also possible that funds may only be allocated to the study of specific species. While I did not
systematically evaluate the species of focus in each study, it was clear that certain organisms
were of more interest than others. For example, in this dataset four articles (5%) focused
specifically on zebra mussels and two articles (~2%) examined invasive grass species in Hawaii.
Scarce’s (1999) article, “Who or What is in Control Here? Understanding the Social
Context of Salmon Biology,” is relevant as it illustrates how salmon are probably one of the most
studied fish in the world due to their economic value and yet remain poorly understood
biologically because of sociopolitical forces. In the case of salmon, both “external, macrolevel
social forces such as political and economic entities” and “microlevel social factors… including
interagency politics and the elites that supervise funding decisions” (Scarce, 1999, p.772) control
salmon biology and, more specifically, the distribution of research funds. It is also feasible that
nonnative species fall victim to the same social forces, resulting in funding allocations to species
of interest to the global market. An analysis of funding trends may better uncover the

	
  

19	
  

mechanism(s) by which a nonnative species becomes “invasive,” using a Weberian
understanding of bureaucratic organizations and their limits as a guide.
Scarce (1999) supports the argument that federal agencies are more likely to fund research
on a species or environmental problem that is of specific interest to the bureaucratic institution.
He states: “funding is an expression of social control, especially the power of the agencies that
identify areas worthy of research support and that distribute research dollars” (p. 768). This
makes it more probable that biologists and ecologists will frame their research proposals around
short-term solutions for nonnative organisms with invasive tendencies that impact economic
relationships (i.e., recreational, agricultural, trade) due to salience to the funding agency. This
leaves research into long-term environmental management solutions, which Scarce (1999)
2

articulates as “basic research,” well under-funded (p.772). Scarce candidly states, “whether they
are employed by governments, by corporations, or as consultants, biologists’ work is made
possible by political momentum or, perhaps, by political expediency, not by some mythical
‘scientific imperative’” (p.772). Other scholars provide support for this statement, arguing for the
reversal of centralized control over the production of knowledge (see for example Lahsen, 2005;
Beck, Silvio, Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1992).
If the lack of objectivity in funding decisions is so well-documented, why do these
processes continue to survive? Weber asserts that the institution of bureaucracy rests upon
“expert training of individuals, a functional specialization of work, and an attitude set for
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
2
Scarce (1999) distinguishes between two main types of research: basic and applied. He defines
basic as engaging more practicality and establishing a thought-provoking mode of research (p.
770).

	
  

20	
  

habitual and virtuoso-like mastery of single yet methodically integrated functions” (Gerth and
Mills, 1946, p. 229). He also emphasizes that bureaucratic power, or more specifically legalrational power, is attained through shared recognition of authority by the public. Therefore,
having once invested bureaucratic funding agencies with authority it becomes incredibly difficult
to interrogate the basis of that power. This is especially true of groups such as the National
Science Foundation, which is expected to reflect the goals and cultural values of the American
society for whom it was founded.
It is also probable that federal and corporate institutions are unprepared to deal with the
implications of long-term research into nonnative species, which will likely further unearth
human industrial, cultural and economic practices that decimate the environment around the
world. As global climate change continues unmitigated, species and ecosystems will shift even
more drastically. Research along these lines would “directly confront the complexity of how we
are changing the planet” and likely require corporate giants to alter their methods of production
(Larson, 2005, p. 499). Directing attention to the roots causes of “invasion” would potentially
require a shift of expenses and responsibility to corporate and industrial entities as well.
Another method of interrogation that has potential to reveal a significant relationship
between invasives and economics is an analysis of the species under investigation in each of the
publications. Out of the hundreds of species categorized as invasive, which are dominating the
literature? Only 3.3% of the 81 abstracts reviewed for this study focused on a microscopic
species, aspergillosis, and it is clear that this focus is due to the presence of the species in
respiratory sites of AIDS victims. Certainly, funding between nonnative plants and animals is not
divided equally as not all animals are rated as detrimental as some plants and vice versa, but
where do the trends emerge? In returning to the case examples, we see that some of the best-

	
  

21	
  

known and most researched species, Nile perch, nutria, and zebra mussels, are those that have
significant economic ties to market powerholders, global impacts, and whose effects on humans
perpetuate interest in the species.
Geographic relationships are also worthy of note as the Globalization Discourse variable
reveals that 16% (n=13) of the abstracts reviewed incorporated either rhetoric describing the
global distribution of nonnatives or the effect of nonnatives in at least two continents. This
indicates that invasives are frequently viewed as a problem of the global environment and broad
ecological systems. This is not surprising as, mentioned earlier, the global spread of trade and
travel is linked to increased cases of invasion.
It may be tempting to explore whether those species categorized as “invasive” are largely
native to “peripheral” countries, spreading out to dominate those ecosystems in “core” nations,
as suggested by Subramaniam’s discussion of xenophobic language. Wallerstein argues that
peripheral countries play a qualitatively different (i.e., less central role) in the Political Economy
of the World-System (PEWS) (Roberts and Grimes, 2002); how might that role translate to
contributing to the spread of invasives? These questions may appear to be worthy of further
exploration as several of the top funders supporting research on invasive, exotic, and introduced
species are based in “core” nations (see Table 1). However, many of the core nations have
contributed to the spread of nonnatives in other core nations, such as through the introduction of
North American largemouth bass to Europe for recreational fishing and the introduction of
Australian eucalyptus to the California area for agricultural and medicinal purposes (GarciaLlorente et al., 2008). In addition, islands often take the spotlight in ecological research as they
frequently provide controlled settings in which to study the effects of a non-indigenous species,
regardless of their designation as core, peripheral or semi-peripheral nations.

	
  

22	
  

In summary, the rapid spread of nonnative species is a real and significant environmental
issue, yet the extent of the capitalist economic system’s influence on the management of
invasives remains unclear. My study has revealed the variation in language used to describe
invasives, but further research is necessary to unearth the subtle (and not-so-subtle) ties between
capitalism, globalization, bureaucracy and species introduction. In addition, ecologists and
conservation biologists should be encouraged to consider the sociological construction of their
species of interest when engaging in research projects; understanding the social context of a
species is key for understanding its biology.

	
  

23	
  

REFERENCES

	
  

24	
  

REFERENCES

Blommaert, Jan and Chris Bulcaen. (2000). Critical Discourse Analysis. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 29, 447-466.
Bobertz, Bradley C. (1995). Legitimizing Pollution Through Pollution Control Laws: Reflections
on Scapegoating Theory. Texas Law Review, 73, 711-751.
Costello, Christopher, John M. Drake, and David M. Lodge. (2007). Evaluating an Invasive
Species Policy: Ballast Water Exchange in the Great Lakes. Ecological Applications,
17, 655–662. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/06-0190
Craig, Matthew T. (2010). Pattern versus process: broadening the view of marine invasive
species. Marine Biology, 157, 2127–2128.
Curry, Patrick. (2011). Ecological Ethics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Dawson, Terence P. (2011). Beyond Predictions: Biodiversity Conservation in a Changing
Climate. Science, 332, 53-58.
Demeritt, David. (2001). Being Constructive about Nature. Social Nature (Eds. Castree and
Braun). Maden, MA: Blackwell.
Doubt, Kevin. (2004). Against Scapegoating: A Sociological Critique of Rene Girard. All
academic research. Retrieved from:
http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/1/9/6/1/pages19610/
19610-15.php
Drake, John M. and Reuben P. Keller. (2004). Environmental Justice Alert: Do Developing
Nations Bear the Burden of Risk for Invasive Species? Bioscience, 54, 718-719.
Dunlap, Riley E. and William R. Catton. (1994). “Struggling with human exemptionalism: the
rise, decline and revitalization of environmental sociology.” The American Sociologist,
25, 5-30.
Dunlap, Riley E., and Eugene A. Rosa. (2000). Environmental Sociology. Encyclopedia of
Sociology, edited by Edgar F. Borgatta and Rhonda Montgomery. New York: Macmillan
Reference.
Dybas, Cheryl Lyn. (2004). Invasives spread from Global shipping: Invasive Species: The
Search for Solutions. Bioscience, 54, 615-621.
Foster, Jennifer. & Sandberg, L. Anders. (2004). Friends or Foe? Invasive Species and Public
Green Space in Toronto. Geographical Review, 94, 178-198.

	
  

25	
  

Garcia-Llorente, Marina, Berta Martin-Lopez, Jose A. Gonzalez, Paloma Alcorlo and Carlos
Mones. (2008). Social perceptions of the impacts and benefits of invasive alien species:
Implications for management. Biological Conservation, 141, 2969–2983.
Gerth H.H. and Mills, C. Wright. (1946). Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Gould, Kenneth A., David N. Pellow, and Allan Schnaiberg. (2004). Interrogating the Treadmill
of Production: Everything You Wanted to Know About the Treadmill but Were Afraid to
Ask. Organization & Environment, 17, 296-316.
Greider, Thomas, and Lorraine Garkovich. (1994). Landscapes: The Social Construction of
Nature and the Environment. Rural Sociology, 59, 1-24.
Gren, Ing-Marie, Lina Isacs, and Mattias Carlsson. (2009). Costs of Alien Invasive Species in
Sweden. Ambio, 38, 135-140
Hannigan, John. (1995). Environmental Sociology: A Social Constructionist Perspective. New
York: Routledge. Chapters 5 and 6.
Haraway, Donna. (1991). Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in
the Late Twentieth Century. Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature.
New York: Routledge.
Hartmann, Betsy. (1998). Population, environment and security: a new trinity. Environment and
Urbanization, 10, 113-127.
Hoddle, Mark S. (2011). Quagga & Zebra Mussels. Center for Invasive Species Research.
Retrieved from http://cisr.ucr.edu/quagga_zebra_mussels.html
Harvey, D. (2007). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
IBM SPSS Statistics 19, Release Version 19.0.0. SPSS, Inc., 2009, Chicago, IL, Retrieved from:
http://www.spss.com.
Lahsen, Myanna. (2005). Technocracy, Democracy, and U.S. Climate Politics: The Need for
Demarcations. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30, 137-169.
Larson, Brendon M. H. (2005). The War of the Roses: Demilitarizing Invasion Biology.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3, 495-500.
Lessa, E., Ojeda, R., Bidau, C. & Emmons, L. (2008). Myocastor coypus. IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. Version 2011. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org.

	
  

26	
  

Lowe S., Browne, M., Boudjelas, S., & De Poorter M. (2000). 100 of the World’s Worst
Invasive Alien Species: A selection from the Global Invasive Species Database. The
Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG), a specialist group of the Species Survival
Commission (SSC) of the World Conservation Union (IUCN). First published as special
lift-out in Aliens 12, December 2000. Updated and reprinted version: November 2004:112.
Mezsaros, Istvan. (2000). Beyond Capital: Toward a Theory of Transition. New York: Monthly
Review Press.
Michel, Jean-Baptiste, Yuan Kui Shen, Aviva Presser Aiden, Adrian Veres, Matthew K. Gray
The Google Books Team, Joseph P. Pickett, Dale Hoiberg, Dan Clancy, Peter Norvig, Jon
Orwant, Steven Pinker, Martin A. Nowak and Erez Lieberman Aiden. (2010). Quantitative
Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books. Science, 176-182
Mooney, H.A. & Cleland. E.E. 2001. “The Evolutionary Impact of Invasive Species.”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
98, 5446-5451.
Pallant, Julie. (2010). SPSS Survival Manual. New York: Open University Press.
Peduzzi, P., Concato, J., Kemper, E., Holford ,T.R., & Feinstein, A.R. (1996). A simulation
study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. Journal of
Clinical Epidemiology, 49, 1373–1379.
Proctor, James D. (1998). “The Social Construction of Nature: Relativist Accusations,
Pragmatist and Critical Realist Responses.” Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 88, 352-376.
Robbins, Paul. (2004). Comparing Invasive Networks: Cultural and Political Biographies of
Invasive Species. Geographical Review, 94, 139-156.
Roberts, J. Timmons and Peter E. Grimes. (2002). World System Theory and the Environment:
Toward a New Synthesis. Sociological theory and the environment: classical
foundations, contemporary insights by Dunlap, Riley E. Rowman & Littlefield.
Sagoff, Mark. (2000). Why Exotic Species Are Not as Bad as We Fear. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 46.
Saundry, Peter. & Boukerrou, Lakhdar. "Lake Victoria". Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J.
Cleveland Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for
Science and the Environment. Retrieved from:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Lake_Victoria.
Sauper, Hubert. (2004). Darwin’s Nightmare [Motion Picture]. France/Austria/Belgium.

	
  

27	
  

Scarce, Rik. (1999). Who or What is in Control Here? Understanding the Social Context of
Salmon Biology. Society & Natural Resources, 12, 763-776.
Schaefer, Valentin. 2009. “Alien Invasions, Ecological Restoration in Cities and the Loss of
Ecological.” Restoration Ecology, 17, 171–176.
Schnaiberg, Allan.(1980). The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford
University Press. Chapters 1 and 5.
Simberloff, Daniel & Don C. Schmitz. (1999). An invasive species threat intensifies, U.S. steps
up fight. Issues in Science and Technology, 15, 25.
Simpson, Annie. (2004). The Global Invasive Species Information Network: What's in It for
You? Bioscience, 54, 613-614.
Stuart, Diana. (2011). Nature is not guilty: food-borne illness and the industrial bagged salad.
Sociologia Ruralis, 51, 158-174.
Subramaniam, Banu. (2001). The Aliens Have Landed! Reflections on the Rhetoric of Biological
Invasions. Meridians: feminism, race, transnationalism, 2, 26-40.
The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. (2007). Nutria. Retrieved from
http://nutria.com/
United States Department of Agriculture: National Agricultural Library. “About NISIC.”
National Invasive Species Information Center. Retrieved from
http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/whatis.shtml
Web of Knowledge. (2011). Thomson Reuters. Retrieved from http://wokinfo.com/.

	
  

28