Left realism PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture notes on realism...

Description

Realist Theories, Left Realism: Direct opposite to right realism, key theorist is Jock Young (1980) developed as a direct response to two main factors:  

The need to take the rising crime rate seriously and to produce practical solutions The influence of right realism on government policies

Much like Marxists left realists see society as capitalist dominated and unequal. However they are reformist rather than revolutionary sociologists. They believe in a gradual social change rather than the violent overthrow of capitalism as the way to achieve equality. Left realists focus on the explanations of crime that will lead to practical strategies for reducing crime rates permanently, rather than waiting for a revolution and a classless society to completely abolish crime.

Taking crime seriously: The main idea of left realism is that crime is a real and growing problem that affects the disadvantaged groups within society who are the main victims of crime. They state that other sociologists do not take crime seriously: Traditional Marxists- concentrated on crimes of the powerful such as corporate crime. Left realists agree this is important but argue they neglect working class crime and its effects. Neo Marxists- romanticise working class criminals as robin hoods, stealing from the rich as an act of political resistance to capitalism. Left realists point out that working class criminals mostly victimise other working class people, not the rich. Labelling theorists- working class criminals are the victims of discriminatory labelling by social control agents. Left realists argue that this approach neglects the real victims- the working class people who suffer from the acts of criminals. Left realists recognise that there has been a real increase in crime rates since the 1950’s, especially working class crime. Young (1997) argues this has led to a crisis in explanation for theories of crime. For instance critical criminology and labelling theory tend to deny that the increase in crime is real, they instead argue that the rise in rates is simply due to the growing reporting of crime or an increased tendency to label the poor. They believe crime statistics are socially constructed, not a reality. Left realists however argue that the increase is too great to be explained as a social construction, it is real. More people are reporting crime because more people are becoming the victims of crime. Taking crime seriously also involves recognising who is most affected by crime. Local crime surveys show that the scale of the problem is even greater than what is shown by official

statistics. They also show that disadvantaged groups have a greater risk of becoming victims, especially of burglary, street crime and violence. Unskilled workers are twice as likely to be burgled as other people. Therefore disadvantaged groups have a greater fear of crime and it has a greater effect on their lives. Fear of attack can prevent women from going out at night. These groups are also less likely to report crimes they have been a victim of and the police are less likely to deal with crimes as domestic abuse, rape or racist attacks.

The causes of crime: Left realists believe in order to take crime seriously they must understand the causes of the rise in crime. Lea and Young (1984) identify three related causes of crime: Relative deprivation: Deprivation is not directly responsible for high rates of crime. For example poverty was at a peak in the 1930’s yet crime rates were low, however since the 50’s living conditions have improved but crime rates have increased. Left realists look as W.G. Runiciman’s (1966) concept of relative deprivation to explain crime. This refers to how deprived someone feels in comparison to others or compared to their expectations. This can cause crime as people may feel resentment that they unfairly don’t have as much as others do. They are then more likely to resort to crime to gain what they feel they need. Although in today’s day and age people are now better off they are now more aware of relative deprivation due to the media and advertising. These sources promote material possessions therefore raising expectations meaning that those who cannot afford these possessions resort to crime in order to gain them. However for Young 1999 relative deprivation is not the only cause for crime, it is this combined with individualism. This is the concern with self and one’s individual rights rather than those of a collective group. It causes crime by encouraging the pursuit of self-interest at the expense of others. Increasing individualism is causing the break-up of families and communities by undermining the values of mutual support and selflessness on which they are based. Subculture: Left realists view of subcultures links majorly to Merton, A.K. Cohen and Cloward and Ohlin’s study of strain theory and subcultures. They build on their concepts of blocked opportunities and forming subcultures as a result of the failure to achieve mainstream goals, therefore meaning that a subculture is a collective solution to the problem of relative deprivation.

However different groups may form different subcultural solutions to this problem. Some may turn to crime to close the deprivation gap however some may seek religion in the hope to receive spiritual comfort. Such religious subcultures may encourage respectability and conformity. For left realists criminal subcultures still subscribe to the values and goals of mainstream society such as material possession and consumerism. They just go about gaining these possessions differently by resorting to illegitimate means. Marginalisation: Marginalised groups lack clear goals and organisations to represent their interests. Workers have clear goals- better pay, and organisations- unions, to put pressure on them to achieve therefore meaning they have no need to resort to crime. However unemployed youths may be considered marginalised as they have no representation or clear goals to achieve, leaving them with only a sense of resentment and frustration. Unable to use political means to improve their position they instead express their frustration through criminal means such as violence and rioting.

Later modernity, exclusion and crime: Young (2002) Argues that we are now living in a stage of lade modern society. Within this society instability, insecurity and exclusion make the problem of crime worse. He contrasts today’s society (1970 onwards) with the period before. He argues that the 50’s and 60’s represented the golden age of a modern capitalist society. This was a period of stability, security and social inclusion. In this time there was full employment, a comprehensive welfare state and low divorce rates meaning that overall there was a strong sense of community. In these times there were strong values of right and wrong and lower crime rates. Since the 70’s instability, insecurity and exclusion have increased. De-industrialisation and loss of manual unskilled jobs have increased unemployment and poverty, especially among the young and ethnic minority groups. Many jobs are now insecure, short time or low paid. These changes have destabilised family and community life contributing to divorce rates. Meanwhile greater inequality between the rich the poor and free market values has encouraged individualism and increased the sense of relative deprivation.   

Media saturated late modern society promotes cultural inclusion. Even the poor have access to the media’s materialistic consumerist cultural message. There is a greater emphasis on leisure, which stressed personal consumption and immediate gratification and leads to higher expectations of ‘the good life’. Despite the ideology of meritocracy, the poor are systematically excluded from opportunities to gain the rewards of a wealthy society.

Young’s contrast between cultural inclusion and economic exclusion is very similar to Merton’s strain to anomie- that society creates crime by setting cultural goals such as material wealth, whilst denying individuals the opportunity to achieve them through legitimate means such as well-paid jobs. A trend in late modernity is for relative deprivation to become generalised throughout society rather than being confined to only those at the bottom. There is widespread resentment at the rewards that some receive without even deserving them. There is also relative deprivation downwards, where the middle class who are hardworking and disciplined resent the stereotypical underclass as idle, irresponsible and living off undeserved state hand-outs. The result of the trend towards exclusion has resulted in a change in the amount and types of crimes:   

Crime is now more widespread Found throughout the social structure Nastier crimes (hate crimes)

The reactions to crime by the public and that state are also changing with late modernity:    

Society is more diverse Less of a consensus of right and wrong Behaviour has become blurred Informal controls are less effective as families and communities fall apart

These factors along with rising crime rates makes the public more intolerant and leads to demands for harsher formal controls by the state and criminalisation of unacceptable behaviour. Meaning late modern society is a high crime society with a low tolerance for crime. Tackling crime: The final section of the left realist’s project is to devise solutions for the problem of crime. They argue that we must both improve policing and control but also deal with the deeper structural causes of crime. Policing and control: Left realist’s argue that police clear up rates are too low to act as a deterrent for crime. Police also spend too little time actually investigating crime. They argue that the public must become more involved in determining the police’s priorities and style of policing. The police depend on the public to provide them with information about crimes. (90% of known crimes to the police are reported to them by the public). However the police are beginning to lose public support, especially within inner cities, among the young and among

ethnic minority groups. As a result of this lack of support, information is drying up and police are relying on military policing such as swamping an area using random stop and search tactics, this alienates communities who see the police as victimising the youths. A vicious circle is then created- locals no longer trust the police and don’t provide them with any information, so the police resort to military policing and so on. Left realists argue that policing must be made more accountable to local communities and must deal with local concerns to maintain their support. The police need to improve their relationship with local communities by spending more time investigating crime and changing their priorities. Left realists also argue that crime control cannot be left to the police alone- a multi-agency approach is needed. Tackling the structural causes: Improved policing is not the only solution. The causes of crime lie in the unequal structure of society therefore major structural changes are needed if we wish to reduce the levels of crime. Young argues that we must deal with inequality of opportunity and the unfairness of rewards, tackle discrimination, provide decent jobs for everyone and also improve housing and community facilities. We must also become more tolerant of diversity and cease stereotyping whole groups of people as criminals. Left realism and government policy: Left realists have had more influence on policy than any other theorists of crime. Their views have strong simulates with the new labour governments of being tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime. New labours firmer approach to the policing of hate crimes, sexual assaults and domestic violence along with the introduction of anti-social behaviour orders echoes left realist concerns to protect vulnerable groups from crime and low level disorder. Similarly new anti-truanting policies and new deals for unemployed youths attempt to reverse the exclusion of those younger people who are at a greater risk of offending. However Young argues that these are just failed attempts are trying to recreate what is referred to as ‘the golden age’ of the 50’s. Evaluation of left realism: Left realism has succeeded in drawing attention to the reality of street crime and its effects, especially on victims of deprived groups. However it is criticised on the following grounds: 



Henry and Milovanovic (1996) argue that it accepts the authority’s definition of crime as being street crime committed by the poor. Instead of labelling the problem as being one of how powerful groups do harm to the poor. Marxists argue that it fails to explain corporate crime, which is more harmful even if it is less conspicuous.



  

Interactionsts argue that because they rely on quantative data from victim surveys they cannot explain criminal’s motives, instead we need qualitative date to reveal their meanings. Their use of subcultural theory means that left realists assume that value consensus exists and that crime only occurs when this breaks down. Relative deprivation cannot fully explain crime because not all those who experience it commit crime. The theory over predicts the amount of crime. It focus on high crime inner city areas gives an unrepresentative view and makes crime appear to be a greater problem than it is.

Comparing right and left realism: There are similarities and differences between the two types of realism. Agree: Crime is a real problem and fear of crime is rational. Disagree: Right realists are neo-conservative whereas left realists are reformist socialists. Right realists believe crime is a result of lack of individual self-control Left realists blame structural inequalities and relative deprivation Right realists prioritise social order achieved through a stance against offenders Left realists prioritise justice achieved through democratic policing and reforms to create greater equality. Summary: Both believe crime is a real problem, especially for the poor. Right Realists:    



Conservatives Causes of crime are partly biological, partly social Crime is a rational choice based on calculating the risks and rewards Causes cannot be changed therefore prevention and punishment is more important Criticised for ignoring wider structural causes of crime

Left Realists:   







Reformists Marxists and labelling theorists don’t take crime seriously 3 causes of crime- relative deprivation, subcultures and marginalisation Late modern society, economic insecurity together with the media increases relative deprivation Solution lies in accountable policing and tackling structural causes of crime Criticised for focussing on street crime and ignoring corporate crime...