Criminological Theory in Context

An Introduction

John Martyn Chamberlain

• Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781473916760
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

This book provides a lively, concise and definitive introduction to the study of the causes of crime. Authoritative yet accessible, it offers a guide to the historical development of criminology as an academic discipline and in doing so:

• presents an overview of a range of different theories of crime, including classical, biological, psychological and sociological approaches
• analyses the strengths and weaknesses of each theory discussed
• provides chapter overview boxes and key summary points
• helps you to take your studies further with self-study tasks and suggestions for further reading.

In covering key theoretical positions and placing them in their historical context, Criminological Theory in Context is perfect for students taking introductory courses in criminological theory.

6 Critical Criminology, Part 1: Marxist, Peacemaking and Realist Theories of Crime

Chapter contents

• Chapter overview 100
• Determinism and free will in sociological forms of criminology 101
• Critical criminology: a conflict theory of society 102
• Critical criminology and the duality of structure 104
• Key summary points 105
• Karl Marx and Willem Bonger: towards a Marxist theory of crime 106
• Key summary points 108
• Further reading 108
• Marxist criminology: crime as a rational response to the conditions of capitalism 108
• Key summary points 111
• Further reading 112
• Peacemaking criminology 112
• Key summary points 114
• Further reading 114
• Left and Right Realist criminology 114
• Key summary points 117
• Further reading 118
• Self-study tasks 118

Chapter overview

Chapter 6 introduces and explores the emergence of Critical criminology in the 1960s. It explains how Critical criminologists use core organising social science concepts, such as race, class and gender, to explore deviance and crime, as well as how these are viewed as being both ‘identities’ and ‘social structures’. As social structures, concepts such as race, gender and class contain culturally and historically specific socio-political rules and associated forms of inequality which are institutionalised in a society’s organisation and define the forms of social status and relative socio-economic power a group possesses, and so the typical forms of social mobility (or lack thereof) commonly possible to different social groups within the structure of a society. As identities, these concepts tell us something about the expectations a society has concerning the behaviour of its members, and the ways in which people can and do commonly act to construct a sense of personal identity in relation to their gender, their class, or their race. It is a basic principle of Critical forms of criminology that social inequalities present within society shape both definitions of what constitutes deviance and crime as well as the likelihood that a person will be labelled as criminal.

The chapter discusses how early Critical criminology in the form of Marxist criminology emphasised the deterministic nature of social structure through its focus on class, while later Critical forms of criminology, such as Left Realist criminology, tend to emphasise what is called the ‘duality of structure’. This stance acknowledges that we are clearly in no small part a product of our social environment as well as that our practical circumstances do act in certain circumstances to constrain and shape our everyday behaviour. But people nevertheless do intrinsically possess agency and free will, and furthermore, certain structures in society can actually act to enhance this agency; for example, equal opportunities and human rights legislation and institutions. This discussion sets the scene for the content of the rest of Chapter 6 as well as that of Chapter 7, which outlines Feminist and Cultural criminological perspectives.

Chapter 6 begins by outlining Marxist criminology. Grounded in the work of Karl Marx and Willem Bonger, Marxist forms of Critical criminology emerged during the late 1960s and early 1970s and focused on the role of the economy and social class in creating and sustaining crime and deviance. This approach promotes the importance of what it views as being a key structural sociological factor – class and class-based struggle – in determining human thought and action, including criminal behaviour. The chapter discusses how, inspired by Marx and Bonger, early Marxist criminologists, such as Richard Quinney and Steven Spitzer, argued that law and order are constituted through the prism of capitalist logic and interest. Crime itself, according to this viewpoint, is a manifestation of class struggle between the powerful bourgeoisie owner of the means of production and the exploited proletariat worker who must sell their labour in order to survive. For Marxist inspired criminologists, such as Stuart Hall, crime occurs because people are brutalised by the conditions of capitalism, and the problem of crime therefore can only be solved by restructuring society.

The chapter outlines the key problems with the Marxist criminological perspective before moving on to explore its influence on contemporary Critical forms of criminology via Peacemaking and Left Realist theories of crime. It discusses how these both argue there is a need to move away from the current punitive mass-incarceration approaches towards the problem of crime, as advocated by many western right-wing political parties as well as Right Realist criminologists, which seem to have come to dominate the popularist political agenda surrounding the problem of crime and how best to address it. This sets the background for exploring Feminist and Cultural forms of Critical criminology in Chapter 7, which focus on the role played by gender and culture in shaping our perceptions and experiences of crime and deviance.

Determinism and Free Will in Sociological forms of Criminology

In this chapter we explore the emergence and features of what can be loosely defined as Critical criminology. To begin with, it is important to reflect on its relationship to the theoretical positions outlined in previous chapters. In Chapter 5 we explored the American Chicago School, with its concern for developing the sociological study of deviance and crime. The chapter focused on three key theories of crime – Strain Theory, Social Disorganisation Theory and Labelling Theory – which highlighted the role of social change and anomie, the organisation of city spaces and urban environments, along with the stereotyping and labelling of human behaviour by socio-cultural elites and interest groups within society, in both shaping and defining certain acts as antisocial and deviant or criminal. This contrasted with Chapters 2–4, where we looked at Classical, Biological and Psychological approaches to the study of crime. Here we noted that whereas Classical criminology emphasised free will and so our personal responsibility for how we act, Biological and Psychological approaches tend to be associated with a more deterministic position which emphasises the impact of factors outside of our direct control on our individual human agency and so the choices we make.

When looking at Strain Theory, Social Disorganisation Theory and Labelling Theory we noted the tendency for these sociological approaches to the study of crime to emphasise the determining nature of social factors, such as the structuring of urban living environments or the labelling of certain behaviours as deviant or criminal by the social group, while at the same time also emphasising the ability of individuals to overcome and even change their circumstances. However, it is important to note that Strain Theory and Social Disorganisation Theory are perhaps more inclined to deterministic explanations for criminal behaviour than Labelling Theory. This is because, although like Strain Theory and Social Disorganisation Theory, Labelling Theory is heavily influenced by the thinking of Durkheim, it is nevertheless fundamentally underpinned by the philosophical tradition of symbolic interactionism and the work of the philosopher Mead, whose view of human beings as creative social actors contrasts somewhat with that of Durkheim who emphasised the role of key socialising forces such as the family, the church, the school and work, in constituting and constraining human beings and their actions.

We encounter the same tensions and differences in this chapter as we look at the emergence of what can be loosely defined as Critical criminology. With Marxist approaches we are emphasising the role of socio-economic factors in the form of class divisions resulting from the mode of production within a capitalistic society, in shaping human behaviour as well as definitions of what constitutes criminal behaviour. In contrast, Peacekeeping and Realist approaches to crime and deviance share much in common with Labelling Theory in emphasising the creative nature of human beings and their free will to choose to act in one way or another and in doing so to overcome their circumstances. Yet it is important to note here that contemporary Critical criminology viewpoints, such as Cultural criminology, tend to emphasise what is called the ‘duality of structure’. It is necessary to outline what is meant by this term before moving on to explore the emergence of Marxist criminology. To begin to do this we first must look at how Critical criminology emphasises a conflict view of society.

Critical Criminology: a Conflict Theory of Society

Critical criminology encompasses a range of different approaches which have different emphases and nuances and have been categorised under various headings: including, Marxist criminology, Left Realism, Feminist criminology, Peacemaking criminology and Cultural criminology. There is no single way of making a path through these various Critical positions. But we can for the sake of clarity in this chapter explore the development of Marxist criminology and how this transformed into contemporary Critical and Left Realist criminology, while in subsequent chapters we will look at Feminist and Cultural criminology.

A key distinguishing feature of Critical forms of criminology is that they reject utterly and completely the notion that a disinterested and value-free criminology is possible. They by and large embrace the fact that their work is value-loaded because they stand in complete opposition to unequal political, economic and social structures and relationships. As we discussed in Chapter 5, one of the key features of Durkheim’s work was that he liked to emphasise order and consensus in society and how group bonds form in and through shared norms and values – hence his focus on deviance and crime as something whose function is to help maintain a sense of common feeling amongst society’s members. Labelling Theory by and large shares this approach too as it emphasises how the societal reaction creates consensus amongst groups of people that certain other individuals – the ‘outsiders’ – are deviant. Critical criminology, in contrast to this, adopts what can be termed a conflict perspective. That is, it sees society as being shaped by conflicts amongst people who have competing self- and group interests. Even though at any one time a society may seem to agree on basic values and goals, such as the individual’s right to pursue love, happiness, a rewarding career and fulfilling family life, the existence of scarce resources and the tendency for them to be allocated unequally, frequently mean that someone (or some group) is benefiting at the expense of someone else.

Critical criminologists tend to argue that the key groups at a disadvantage in western nation-states (and some would say worldwide as well) are women, ethnic minorities and the poor and socially excluded. Importantly, they also note that people may not recognise or admit that their interests are in conflict with the interests of others when in fact they are. It is argued that conflict is ubiquitous and historic, and, furthermore, consists of a struggle over three related things: money, power and influence. Those who have more of them try to keep things the way they are. Those who have less of them favour change so that they get a bigger share. The groups with wealth, power and influence are favoured in the conflict precisely because those resources put them in a dominant position. It is the ‘have’s’ rather than the ‘have-not’s’ who make the rules, control the content and flow of ideas and information, as well as design and impose penalties for non-conformity. Sometimes the struggle for resources is blatant and bloody but more often than not it is subtle and restrained.

Of particular interest for Critical criminologists is the fact that mass public protest – both violent and non-violent – is relatively rare, in spite of the presence of large-scale inequality within most western nation-states. Various factors are pointed out as contributing to this. An important idea here, first put forward by the philosopher Karl Marx, is called ‘false consciousness’. This is the idea that the dominant group in society is able to promote beliefs and values that support the existing social order to such an extent that the disadvantaged groups actually believe their interests are served by the prevailing social conditions, when in fact they are not. Think here about how you are often told that if you behave yourself and don’t get into trouble with the police, or at least not too much trouble to get a criminal record, get a good education and work hard both in your studies and when you get your first job after leaving university, then you will eventually work your way up the career ladder, as well as how this will, in turn, enable you to have the lifestyle you want so you can go on holidays, buy a car, afford to give your children nice things, get a house, and so on. But for Marxist-inspired criminologists what you are being sold here is nothing more than a gilded cage of your own making. You are not being brought up to have a free life. Rather, you are being trained and prepared for a life as a cog in a machine which cares little for you, and indeed, just wants you to keep deluding yourself so it can extract the surplus value of your labour and turn it into a profit for the shareholders of the company you work for. What is more, they will sell this surplus value back to you in the form of consumerist goods and gadgets which in reality you don’t need but think you can’t survive without because you’ve been seduced into believing you can’t. This is a point we will return to later in this chapter.

Critical Criminology and the Duality of Structure

Critical criminology examines how different forms of oppression, inequality and conflict affect people in everyday life as well as through the lens of crime and law. But it is particularly interested in how structural inequalities evident in a society’s class, race and gender structures affect, firstly, participation in crime, secondly, how crime is defined, and thirdly, the making and enforcement of laws. To do this Critical criminologists examine crime relative to social, economic and political structures and forms of inequality, as found in a given society at a particular point in history. When Critical criminologists speak about race, class and gender they use the terms differently from other criminologists, including Classical criminologists, Psychological and Biological criminologists, labelling theorists, or Durkheimian inspired sociologists of deviance. For traditional criminologists race, class and gender tend to be interpreted as characteristics of individuals and are used to identify subjects of study, such as the ‘middle class’, or ‘female victims’. But for Critical criminologists race, class and gender are both personal identities and social structures.

As structures race, class and gender contain culturally and historically specific rules that define (1) the types of power a group possesses, (2) a group’s social and economic positions within society and (3) the opportunities for success people from these groups typically possess (Paternoster and Bachman, 2007). As identities, race, class and gender tell us something about the ‘social expectations concerning the behaviour of people from different groups, and the ways in which people act to construct themselves, that is their sense of personal identity in relation to their gender, their class, or their race’ (Paternoster and Bachman, 2007: 267). So when we label someone as being working class we are defining them as belonging to a particular structural location within the social fabric of a society which tells us something about how it is organised and the forms of inequality which help to define it. This is because this location shapes the opportunities or pathways to success a person belonging to this class typically has at their disposal.

For Critical criminologists we are not all born equal and do not all possess the same level of, or types of, opportunities to enhance our social mobility. We stereotypically expect working-class people to behave in particular ways and possess a life story which is different in several key ways from people who occup...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Table of Contents
• Purpose and Structure of this Book
• Studying Criminal Life
• Classical Criminology and Contemporary Rational Choice Theory
• Biological Criminology
• Psychological Criminology
• Strain Theory, Social Disorganisation Theory and Labelling Theory
• Critical Criminology, Part 1: Marxist, Peacemaking and Realist Theories of Crime
• Critical Criminology, Part 2: Feminist and Cultural Criminology
• Postmodern Critical Standpoints and the Criminal Life Course
• Reflecting on Theories of Crime, Theories of Human Nature: Crime in the Age of the Enterprising Risky Citizen-Subject
• Glossary