Intersectionality,Rural Criminology,and Re-imaging the Boundaries of Critical Criminology

One of the significant shortcomings of the criminological canon, including its critical strands—feminist, cultural and green—has been its urbancentric bias. In this theoretical model, rural communities are idealised as conforming to the typical small-scale traditional societies based on cohesive organic forms of solidarity and close density acquaintance networks. This article challenges the myth that rural communities are relatively crime free places of ‘moral virtue’ with no need for a closer scrutiny of rural context, rural places, and rural peoples about crime and other social problems. This challenge is likewise woven into the conceptual and empirical narratives of the other articles in this Special Edition, which we argue constitute an important body of innovative work, not just for reinvigorating debates in rural criminology, but also critical criminology. For without a critical perspective of place, the realities of context are too easily overlooked. A new criminology of crime and place will help keep both critical criminology and rural criminology firmly anchored in both the sociological and the criminological imagination. We argue that intersectionality, a framework that resists privileging any particular social structural category of analysis, but is cognisant of the power effects of colonialism, class, race and gender, can provide the theoretical scaffolding to further develop such a project.     

What is Crime?

Since its emergence in the 19th century, orthodox criminology has suffered from the contradiction of claiming, on the one hand, to be a value-neutral, intellectual discipline, and on the other, operating as part of the ideological apparatus of the political state by taking state definitions of what is crime and who are its criminals as the starting points for criminological inquiry. This essay examines the ways in which criminology has suffered from this internal contradiction, with particular attention to how it has been constrained by political, economic, and professional forces to focus primarily on crimes whose collective harm to society falls well below the harms caused by the wrongful, but often legal acts of economic and political elites. It concludes with the recognition that the kind of critical inquiry emblematic of the work of Bill Chambliss is essential if criminology hopes to remain relevant to the challenges of the future.     

Toward a Green-Cultural Criminology of “the Rural”

There are many connections between the various strands of critical criminology. Previously, we highlighted common issues between green and cultural criminology, while also noting some of the ways that each perspective could potentially benefit from cross-fertilization (Brisman and South in Crime Media Cult 9(2):115–135, 2013, Green cultural criminology: constructions of environmental harm, consumerism and resistance to ecocide. Routledge, Oxford, 2014; McClanahan in Crit Criminol. doi:10.1007/s10612-014-9241-8, 2014). In this article, we extend our analysis to consider green, cultural and rural criminologies through the exposition of several key issues, including “the rural” as local context in which exploitative global forces may exercise power; agribusiness and the food/profit chain; farming and the pollution of land, water and air; and finally, cultural/media images and narratives of rural life. We focus more specifically on this final intersectionality through an analysis of Jonathan Franzen’s novel Freedom (2010), analyzing his depictions of rural people, environmental activists, and the rural environment through the issue of mountaintop removal. We conclude our article by identifying several examples of key directions in which the intersectionality of green, cultural and rural criminologies might proceed, including trafficking and abuse of farmworkers, harms associated with the cultivation of quinoa, and a critical interpretation of media and popular narrative depictions of environmental issues within rural contexts.     

Left Out? The coverage of critical perspectives in introductory criminology textbooks, 1990–1999

DeKeseredy and Schwartz have criticized introductory criminology textbooks published in the United States for their ‘poor treatment’ of critical/radical perspectives. This paper subjects this criticism to empirical analysis by studying the coverage of critical perspectives in 34 introductory criminology textbooks published from 1990 to 1999. Specifically, I examine how the coverage of critical perspectives in the textbooks is influenced by: 1) the theoretical orientations of the texts; 2) the positions of the texts on debate over conflict and consensus theories of law; and 3) the positions of the texts on the evidence supporting critical perspectives. This analysis shows that critical/radical perspectives in general, but in particular recent developments in critical criminology (including critical feminism, left realism, peacemaking criminology and postmodern criminology) are often ‘left out’ of contemporary criminology textbooks.     

Towards a global critical justice problematic

This paper argues that a global perspective is demanded by neo-Marxist methodological considerations, pointing out that traditional comparative criminology has been seriously flawed in its assumptions and preconceptions. A critical comparative criminology must be based on a world system and/or dependency model, coupled with human rights concerns. The crucial concerns of critical criminology are re-identified within a problematic of the concepts: “reproduction”, “production”, “the state”, and “transformation”. Their relevance to a comparative criminology is underscored, by way of critiquing north/western (including Canadian) critical criminology. The paper ends by drawing out some of the implications of this approach for justice theory and research in Canada.     

Preventing Crime is Hard Work: Early Intervention,Developmental Criminology,and the Enduring Legacy of James Q. Wilson

Objective

The late James Q. Wilson (1931-2012) was a prolific scholar and made many important contributions to the field of criminology. Less well known, however, is that Wilson was a great advocate of early prevention of delinquency and later offending. This essay examines this aspect of Wilson's overall contribution to criminology.

Materials and methods

Narrative review of Wilson's research and writings on early crime prevention and developmental criminology.

Results

Three key events delineate Wilson's long-lasting support for early crime prevention: his 1983 "Raising Kids" article with its special focus on family-based prevention; his help to initiate and champion developmental and longitudinal research on offending in the 1980s and 1990s; and his influential writings and behind-the-scenes work on early prevention throughout the 1990s and 2000s.

Conclusions

Wilson played an important role in advocating for early crime prevention. Without question, this is part of his enduring legacy to the field of criminology.     

Whither Critical Criminology? A Contemplation on Existential Hybridization

There has been much debate, in recent years, about the task, aims and goals of critical criminology, and about the need for critical criminology to re-invent itself. Referring to Sartre’s existentialism, this contribution introduces and expands on the thesis that critical criminology may be able to re-invent itself with the help of new ‘guiding images’, most notably: existential hybridization. This is a revised version of a lecture given at Keele University (UK) on 27 March 2007. This paper is a much shortened version of an extensive contribution on ‘The Being and Nothingness of Critical Criminology’ (forthcoming).     

Cultural Criminology and the Politics of Meaning

Cultural criminology focuses on situational, subcultural, and mediated constructions of meaning around issues of crime and crime control. In this sense cultural criminology is designed for critical engagement with the politics of meaning, and for critical intervention into those politics. Yet the broader enterprise of critical criminology engages with the politics of meaning as well; in confronting the power relations of justice and injustice, critical criminologists of all sorts investigate the social and cultural processes by which situations are defined, groups are categorized, and human consequences are understood. The divergence between cultural criminology and other critical criminologies, then, may be defined less by meaning than by the degree of methodological militancy with which meaning is pursued. In any case, this shared concern with the politics of meaning suggests a number of innovations and interventions that cultural criminologists and other critical criminologists might explore.     

Making Genocide Unthinkable: Three Guidelines for a Critical Criminology of Genocide

Through a critical examination of some of the prevailing arguments for establishing a criminology of genocide, this paper seeks to demonstrate the limitations of mainstream criminological frameworks for understanding genocide. Moreover, it argues that, if we are to move beyond a mechanical application of the criminological canon to this thus far understudied area of criminal behaviour, we must develop a critical and reflexive criminological approach to the topic of genocide. In this manner, the analysis presented here follows in the footsteps of Bauman [Bauman (1989). Modernity and the Holocaust. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press] by asking: what can genocide teach us about criminology? In addressing this question, three guidelines for a future criminology of genocide are proposed. Briefly put, a criminology of genocide should be: (1) reflexive and non-redemptive; (2) ‘undisciplined’ and critical; and, (3) responsible.     

知识背景、三维解构与智识启迪:贝卡里亚犯罪学思想论要

从刑事一体化的角度来看,贝卡里亚及其《论犯罪与刑罚》一书,不仅是刑法学界的遗产,也是犯罪学的一笔丰厚遗产。贝卡里亚的犯罪学理论是建立在对前启蒙时代犯罪学的批判之上的,通过与前启蒙时代犯罪学的比较,可以发掘贝卡里亚对犯罪学理论的巨大贡献。系统整理贝卡里亚及其犯罪学思想,不仅是犯罪学对于学界的一种理论贡献,更是对于深度融合刑事法学各个学科,具有不可低估的学术意义。     

BETWEEN CLASSICISM AND POSITIVISM: CRIME AND PENALITY IN THE WRITINGS OF GABRIEL TARDE*

This study is a foray into a neglected but nevertheless important area in the intellectual history of the sociology of crime. Its focus is the writings of Gabriel Tarde (1843–1904), an elusive figure who was tremendously influential in his own time yet whose criminology was quickly lost in the even wider acclaim then accorded his contributions to political philosophy and social psychology. Three consistent lines of enquiry in Tarde's considerable discourse on crime are explained here, as follows: (1) his virulent opposition to biological positivism; (2) his attempt to transcend the crude scientism of the Franco-Belgian moral statisticians; and (3) his debate with Durkheim about the putative normality of crime. It is suggested that Tarde's engagement in these debates contributed to a protracted, neoclassical compromise in the domain of penality whereby the legal subject of classical jurisprudence was rescued from the positivist revolution in criminology.     

Seeing War as Criminal: Peace Activist Views and Critical Criminology

A hallmark of critical criminology is its critique of the traditional definition of crime. For decades, critical scholars have proposed humanistic definitions of crime that bring state violence into the purview of academic criminology—although outside of critical criminology this is a matter of great contentiousness. This study investigates the views of those involved in peace activism, but not in any way associated with academic criminology, about the application of the term ‘crime’ to war, specifically the recent US war on Iraq. Given that there is no existing research on this subject, the article also examines how peace activists define crime generally and whether they believe those responsible for the war should be regarded as war criminals. Not surprisingly, semi‐structured interviews with 13 anti‐war activists reveal significant support for elements of critical criminological definitions of crime but an unexpected concern on the part of some that the application of the term ‘crime’ to war could be counterproductive in efforts to stop state violence. The rationales for this concern, as well as those for other issues addressed in the study, are largely presented in the interviewees’ own words.     

The failure of postmodern criminology

Postmodernism has recently washed up on the shores of criminology, and is the subject of considerable theoretical debate. This essay critically assesses some of the most trenchant and relevant components of the theoretical bases for postmodernism, and sketches out their applicability to criminology. It argues that postmodernism can be of little assistance to intellectuals committed to critique and fundamental social change. While postmodernists look down so severely at ‘old-fashioned’ ‘meta-narratives’ like Marxism, it is now they who are falling off the contemporary agenda, because they are dated and theoretically flawed. My main argument is that the theoretical imporverishment of postmodernism creates an obstacle to the development of a truly critical criminology. One of the current challenges of critical criminology is to amplify the critique of postmodern criminology and to reorient the trajectory of critical criminology away from the postmodern detour. The essay explores the historical context of the emergence of postmodernism, the modernist/ postmodernist era, deconstructionism, ‘meta-narratives’, idealism, form and content, fragmentation/pluralism/relativism, absence of progressive praxis, conservatism and Marxism.     

Critical criminology,social justice,and an alternative view of incarceration

Despite its lack of general popularity, critical criminology continues to offer compelling criticism of the dominant paradigm of criminal justice. In this essay, critical criminology is presented along with its principal assertions, theoretical assumptions, and implications for social reform and criminal justice. The author argues that critical criminology provides a valuable theoretical backdrop for the analysis of incarceration, particularly its emergence as a form of local industry. Other developments pertinent to the political economy are also discussed, especially as they pertain to the shaping of patterns of unemployment and imprisonment.     

Critical Criminology Meets Radical Constructivism

Critical criminology and radical constructivism are frequently regarded as an impossible pair—or, at least, as a rather schizophrenic one. This is so, notably, because radical constructivism rests on the (paradoxical) abandonment of what Jean-François Lyotard named méta-récits. It rests on the refusal to distinguish between the phenomenal and the symbolic, and thus implies the complete vanishing of the classical difference between ontology and epistemology. This would consequently deprive criminology (or, more generally, the social sciences) of any anchoring point enabling a critical utterance. The present contribution’s thesis is that, on the contrary, radical constructivism can catalyze critical criminology. Among the possible contributions of a radically constructivist sociology of criminalization, this paper focuses on: its call for a reworking of the concept of social control, which avoids problems related to its contemporary usage; its focus on power and force, in a way which avoids Foucaultian perspectives’ aporetic elements, and problematizes every instance of legitimized authoritarian practices.     

Constitutive Criminology and the ‘War on Terror’

This article presents a constitutive criminological perspective of the ‘war on terror’. The article will first deconstruct the ‘war on terror’; showing how constitutive criminology provides a framework in which foreign policy, the UK state; the police, and society can be systematically analyzed in relation to one another. Second, the article explores how constitutive criminology enables a critical analysis of the dominant state-centric ‘war on terror’ discourse. The article through discussing the multifaceted ‘war on terror’ demonstrates the relevance of constitutive criminology, as a non state centric approach to critical perspectives in criminology.     

Queer Criminology,Critique, and the “Art of Not Being Governed”

This article builds on previous work that argues that a useful path for a “queer/ed criminology” to follow is one that takes “queer” to denote a position. It suggests that one way of developing such an approach is to adopt a particular understanding of critique—specifically one that draws from Michel Foucault’s view of critique as “the art of not being governed.” It then charts some of the possible directions for such a “queer/ed criminology.” While such an approach to critique has previously been discussed within critical criminologies, this article suggests that it is useful for queer criminologists to explore the opportunities that it affords, particularly in order to better appreciate how “queer/ed criminology” might connect to, draw from, or push against other currents among critical criminologies, and help to delineate the unique contribution that this kind of “queer/ed criminology” might make.     

Teaching critical crimimology and critical justice studies in Canada

This paper explores four problems in relation to teaching critical criminology. First, it argues that use of the label critical criminology is misleading because it sometimes creates the impression that antagonistic theoretical perspectives are similar. Second, it profiles the student audience for criminology courses in Canada, arguing that students in different programmes and with different social backgrounds present instructors with different teaching problems. Third, it reviews some of the more recent criminology and criminal justice texts and suggests that some may not be suitable for students taking their first course in criminology or criminal justice. Fourth, it reviews a particular teaching strategy to deal with various teaching situations and suggests that an interactive, comparative teaching model might be the best method when teaching controversial perspectives. Revision of paper presented to Learned Society Meetings, Quebec City, June, 1989.     

Queer Contestations and the Future of a Critical “Queer” Criminology

It is intuitive to include critical criminologists in early conversations about “queering” criminology given that the paradigms and methods of critical criminology can be employed to challenge subordination and inequality in its several dimensions. The first part (and main focus) of this article problematizes this intuition, which is easy to accept at face value, by reflecting backwards and explaining how early influential critical criminological views perpetuated damaging stereotypes and representations of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people as sexual deviants. The second part reflects forward, and discusses the difficulties of carving a space in the discipline for critical queer perspectives. Drawing on critical and critical race theories, this article advocates a relational, intersectional approach to conceptualize sexual orientation and gender identity in criminological theory and research. This approach considers the connections among sexual orientation or gender identity and other differences (e.g., race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, class, gender, etc.) without assuming or attaching fixed meanings to those differences.     

EDWIN H. SUTHERLAND AND THE MICHAEL‐ADLER REPORT: SEARCHING FOR THE SOUL OF CRIMINOLOGY SEVENTY YEARS LATER*

In response to a devastating critique of the state of criminology known as the Michael‐Adler Report, Edwin H. Sutherland created differential association theory as a paradigm for the field of criminology. I contend that Sutherland's strategy was flawed because he embraced a sociological model of crime and in doing so adopted a form of sociological positivism. Furthermore, Sutherland ignored key facts about crime that were contrary to his theoretical predilections. Recognizing that facts must come first and that criminology is an interdisciplinary field of study, I offer life‐course criminology as a paradigm for understanding the causes and dynamics of crime. In addition, I identify three warning signs that I believe inhibit the advancement of criminology as a science and a serious intellectual enterprise.