Radical Criminology script MJ PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Radical Criminology script MJ PDF

Description

Radical Criminology video 1 Hello This session is going to introduce you to radical criminology. Students often find understanding radical criminology difficult. This is not helped by there being various types of radical criminology. You may come across descriptions such as Marxist criminology, conflict criminology, anti-criminology, new criminology, expose criminology and critical criminology. Given the variety of descriptions it is more accurate to say that rather than there being one radical criminology there are various radical criminologies. In other words, rather than there be one radical criminology the term radical criminology describes a number of approaches. Although there are differences between these approaches what unites them are that they are oppositional. We will explore this in more detail in a moment, for the time being it should be understood that radical criminologies are opposed to ● the dominant forms of criminology that existed during the 1970s and ● secondly to the prevailing social norms & political processes. Up until the 1970s when radical criminologies gained most interest, criminology was dominated by positivism and functionalism. These are variously referred to as mainstream, orthodox, administrative and liberal criminology. Secondly, they are opposed to the prevailing social norms & political processes, which are shown to be based upon conditions which are discriminatory, unequal and oppressive. Being oppositional, radical criminologies are politically left wing. They are critical of what is regarded as the conservativism and liberalism of much criminology and societal norms. Rather than accept prevailing forms of knowledge and social order the overall object of radical approaches is to dislodge, dispute and replace these with alternative ways of life based on values of social justice. So rather than maintain the status quo radical criminologies seek to transform it, to bring about a fairer society. Radical criminologists regard society as one which is riddled with inequality and the unequal distribution of power. Radical criminologists interrogate these factors by applying different analytical frameworks or social theories. What we shall primarily focus upon in the session today is that of an analysis of how society is organised according to class. This analysis draws heavily on the work of Karl Marx. 1

The next session will introduce you to another radical ‘standpoint’ of analysis namely feminism. Feminists exposed the way that society is organised in ways that women experience inequality and lack of power in comparison to men. Other approaches address race, seeing society organised in such a way that ethnic minorities are oppressed and victimised. Other radical approaches have also sought to consider the oppression of other neglected, marginalised and ignored groups. More recent examples include the LGBTQ community, people with disabilities, southern criminology and even green criminology which seeks to expose the abuse and exploitation of the environment and non-human species. Many of these radical approaches are more recent. For the purpose of our discussions today we shall primarily focus on Marxist criminology that emerged in the 1970s. Considering why it emerged when it did. However, as you will see in discussing the video towards the end of the session, Marxist criminology is equally applicable today (maybe even more so), given the growing inequalities & insecurities experienced by people today, as they were when Marxist criminology emerged in the 1970s.

Radical Criminology video 2 Okay your tutor is now going to show you two pictures one after the other. I want you to jot down on a piece of paper what you see in each picture. Get ready,

I suspect that the majority of you jotted down that you saw ducks. How many of you actually wrote down water? Now look again at the picture, what are the ducks doing in each picture? In the first picture they are swimming in the second they are standing. To understand what the ducks are doing we really have to understand what condition the water is, whether it is flowing or frozen. Dominant criminological explanations are accused of only having an interest in the individual, trying to understand their criminal behaviour in isolation of the social conditions in which they live their life. Radical criminologies seek to draw our attention to that which is there, that which connects us all, but is unaccounted for – this might be to do with class, sexism, racism, heterosexism etc. So, in other words radical criminologists dispute the idea that you can identify the causes of crime by only investigating the individual to the exclusion of these wider social conditions.

2

This week we are concerned with class. So, if you imagine that rather than ducks we are analysing people and rather than water we are analysing them in terms of their class positions and class relations. So Marxist criminologists do not focus exclusively on individuals but understand that to fully comprehend behaviour that this be put in relation to how class functions to create particular social conditions. So, we need in other words, to understand the individual in terms of structural conditions based on social class. Marxist criminologists draw on the social theories of Karl Marx. Marx said very little about crime. His main argument is that capitalist societies are organised in relation to class. Class provides the main explanatory concept in relation to how society is organised. His theories however were particularly influential on a variety of criminologists who incorporated Marxist theory into their work. I want to very quickly introduce you to a number of Marxist criminologists who were prominent in the 1960s and 1970s and offer brief explanations of their work. This is by no means an exhaustive list as there are more than I discuss. In addition to Marxist criminologists there are also Marxist penologists – foremost of which are Rusche and Kircheimer who argued that prisons are less about controlling crime as controlling the working classes according to fluctuations in the economy, Marxist revisionist historians who have offered explanations for the emergence and use of criminal law and formation of the new police to embed capitalist social order Although not a criminologist Engels wrote a book originally in German in 1845 called the Condition of the Working Class in England. What is interesting about this book is Engels first hand observations of the suffering of the working class in Manchester during the industrial revolution. Engels observed that early industrial capitalism created the conditions whereby the working classes were forced into a choice between starvation or criminality. We shall consider aspects of this argument shortly. The first Marxist criminologist is the Dutchman Bonger who published a book called Criminality and Economic Conditions in 1916. His main argument was that capitalism bred criminality by encouraging self-interest, competition and egoism. What might be thought of as a form of social Darwinism whereby people sought to outdo one another in ways that encouraged uncaring individualism and self-advancement. Capitalism, Bonger, argued led to social breakdown and crime. Whilst Engels and Bonger’s texts were written in the late 19th and early 20th century Marxist criminologists became more prominent from the late 1960s and particularly the 1970s. A number of North American Marxist criminologists produced work during this period, scholars such as Chambliss, Quinney, Sellin, Turk and Vold. 3

The most important contribution to British Marxist criminology is a book written by Taylor Walton and Young in 1973 called The New Criminology. This book provided an intellectually scathing assault on the standard criminological explanations which were dominant up until its publication in 1973. As well as being very critical of standard criminological approaches the authors set out a vision of a new social order based on tolerance and true equality of power. Although I have briefly identified a number of authors and texts which contributed to Marxist criminology in the 1970s, & there are many others which I’ve not mentioned, my object is not to offer detailed explanations of them. What I really want to offer is a more general over-view of their common arguments and ideas. Okay, you may now have realised that radical criminology is extremely political. Rather than assume some sense of scientific neutrality and be dispassionate, radical criminologists are committed to improving social order by exposing processes of discrimination and oppression. Before we say much more, it is worthwhile explaining what Marxism is, as it provides the intellectual and political basis upon which Marxist criminology draws upon. As I explained a moment ago, Marx argued that capitalist societies are organised according to a class structure. Class provides the main way in which social order and disorder is explained by Marxists. Criticisms raised What do you understand by it? how does it reflect a consideration of linking individual behaviour and social/structural position? How might the quote echo classicism? How might it also, ironically, echo an aspect of positivism? So, an important criticism of criminology is that it focused entirely on the individual. Yet Marxists argue that behaviour is produced under particular structural or class constraints. Whereas we all may be able to exercise the ability to make choices what is important is the type and amount of choices available. So, for example compare the choices you are able to make and the more favourable position you are in, compared to say a homeless unemployed rough sleeper, or even a person who is working but working in low paid work or on zero hours contract who might be trying to support a family. What we are doing here is connecting individual agency or choice with structural position. Marxist criminologies in other words connects a micro analysis with a macro analysis. This macro analysis involves the application of class structure. In other 4

words, attention is paid to the ducks but also to the state of water, the water is a metaphor for class. Macro- analysis may also be referred to as a grand theory. We are applying a broad theoretical model, in our instance class structure, to a social phenomenon, the phenonomen Engels speaks of is working class offending. As you may have discussed in relation to the Engels quote, offending is explained as a matter of choice. Marxist criminologists therefore dispute biological and psychological positivism which only focuses on the individual but also portrays the offender as suffering from some form of illness or defect. There is no attempt to understand the meaning of the behaviour other than to regard it as an outcome of some form of pathology. Indeed, portraying criminality as a result of some defect or illness is one way Marxists argue it is stripped of any meaning. Consequently, by stripping it of any meaning other than portraying as an illness means there is no need to address or alter the social conditions which it might be a consequence of. Marxists argue that offenders are not ill, what is defective or dysfunctional is the social and economic order in which people live. It is, in other words being in a structurally unfavourable position which causes crime. So Marxist criminologists are particularly critical of positivistic explanations of offending for using ‘science’ and conceptions of illness and thereby not considering wider social and economic conditions. Marxists criminologists are also critical of functionalist explanations. As explained in a previous session functionalism assumes that it is possible, with the correct knowledge, to achieve a harmoniously working society. Yet, as we will explore in relation to theme two this is far from ever being the case, and nor might we want it to be the case. You recently studied subcultural and labelling theories. You might be thinking, ‘okay I get that Marxist criminology is critical of positivistic criminology, but what about subcultural and labelling theories, were’nt these also critical of positivism’? Collectively subcultural and labelling theories are referred to as new deviancy theories. They are critical of positivism for dogmatically subscribing to scientific method which results in seeing criminals as wooden figures, or in ways that portray them almost as laboratory rats. New deviancy theories on the other hand, are based on a sociological understanding of human behaviour. Here the emphasis is to account for behaviour by more authentically understanding the deviant in terms of how they fit into society or are reacted to by society. In other words, new deviancy theories attempt to humanise the deviant and understand them by learning to see the world through the deviants eyes. 5

The shift away from positivistic explanations of crime to more sociological explanation of crime was important. Indeed, it could be argued that this shift helped bring about the development of Marxist and other radical criminologies. As much as Marxists might applaud this shift they came to see new deviancy theory as limited. Whilst new deviancy theories highlighted the existence of various different forms of behaviour, for instance using illicit drugs, being part of various youth cultures, or alternative cultures such as living in communes or being part of a travelling or nomadic community, what they did not do was search for deeper processes of control. Studies were generally confined to simply depicting different ways of life of deviant and marginal groups. It was a form of what some refer to as moral voyeurism. Showing that social life is diverse and that there is a relativity. If studies weren’t about deviant and marginal groups they might have been about the agents of control – the police, social workers, welfare officers and such like. Yet these were pretty low level agents of control. What was needed was the application of a grand theory which links up these elements. Rather than seeing them as disparate and disconnected, applying in our instance Marxist analysis of class, we can trace the roots of how control is achieved to its source. Namely capitalist system which seeks to make itself systemic. So as important as new deviancy theories are they did not go far enough. They stopped short of offering what Taylor Walton and Young call a fully social theory of deviance. One which connects deviance to processes of control to the capitalist social organisation. I want to pause here for a moment so that we can reflect on what criminology is, how it is produced and for what reason. This, I hope will help consolidate some of what you may have learned up until now and be able to see the comparison with radical criminologies. This is also an important question about how knowledge is produced in the social sciences. Of all the theories you have been introduced to in this module how are the ideas you have learned produced? I suspect that much of what you have learned and now know concerns the outcome of knowledge production in other words the conclusion, the main arguments and ideas. But how did the theorists you have learned about come to these conclusions or be able to defend their arguments? There must be more than just having an idea otherwise why are your ideas no more valuable than any of the theorists you have learned about? The answer to this relates to matters of methodology. What are the methods by which knowledge is produced? Here there are important overlaps with what you will 6

learn on modules concerned with research methods. Essentially there are two approaches empirical and epistemological. Much of what you have learned in this module up until now is based upon empirical methods. Empiricism can be equated with scientific method. Many empirical studies in criminology sought to replicate the methods used in the natural sciences so that the knowledge produced can be verified and defended. Empiricism and epistemology Empirical methods usually involve quantitative methods, in short this involves counting, measuring, categorising, surveying or doing closed interviews or questionnaires. The emphasis is on collecting objective data by standardised methods. It does not really matter who does the research as long as they follow the procedures they will come up with the same results or data. Positivism is very much couched in these sorts of procedures. Even the sociological work associated with the new deviancy theories involves empiricism. Although this empiricism is more qualitative, whereby what is sought is not objective data, but broader explanation which offers insight and better understanding. The methods here might involve open ended interviews, life history interviews, participant observation. As explained earlier such approaches though interesting in revealing different social realities and offering explanations for them they came to be seen by more radical criminologists as being too liberal. In other words, they tended to accept the status quo rather than seek to change it. Collectively then, positivism and new deviancy theories were criticised by radical criminologists for being complicit in sustaining the status quo, in doing very little to try and alter social norms and arrangements so that the state does not have the power to exert control over some and ignore the wrongs of others, here for instance I am thinking of crimes committed by the apparently respectable and even powerful. Radical criminologists are particularly scathing of positivistic criminology since this has been intimately interwoven with an agenda of colluding with the state by providing it with ways to better detect, investigate, prosecute and punish offenders. In this sense criminology has colluded with adding to the power and efficiency of the state without any questions being asked about the social and political constructions of what constitutes crime, the wider social inequalities which breed crime. In other words, there was complete neglect to question social inequality and the political construction of what constitutes (and does not constitute crime). 7

These sorts of questions relate to debates on epistemology. This is a complex term. For the time being what such questions ask is ‘why are things as they are’? could things be different from what they are? Such questions in other words require us to question our taken for granted assumptions about the social world as we see it. This requires considerable reflexivity and insight. One way to think about this is to imagine a toddler who asks as question, upon each answer they respond by asking why? If you have ever been in this situation eventually you tend to give up and just say that it is as it is so stop asking questions. But maybe things as they are could be different. Could our social order be different if it were not based on capitalism? While asking such questions is difficult it is aided by social theory. Social theory should be regarded as its own method. Where empirical researchers might use a survey, a Marxist criminologist will apply an analysis of class. Other social theories have been applied to questions on crime, crime control and punishment. You have already encountered at least two broad social theories. Think about classicism, Beccaria did not involve himself in counting but drew on philosophical and moral reasoning to devise an alternative social order to that which existed in the premodern period. Durkheim’s theory about social order informed his arguments on anomie. Whilst we are concerned with Marxist class analysis other social theories are associated with other radical criminologies. Feminist theories were applied by feminists. Here they illustrated how social order is based on male preferences. Foucault also offered insights into thinking about matters of power and control and how, for example, prisons were places which created the conditions in which we are all subject to processes of ‘normalisation’ and pacification. Critical social theorists associated with the Frankfurt school also demonstrated how popular opinion can be manipulated into accepting particular norms and indeed demanding greater levels of authoritarianism. Now wher...