Victimology: In what respects, if any, does radical victimology represent an advance on the positivist agenda and methodology that preceded it?

Authors Avatar

3. In what respects, if any, does radical victimology represent an advance on the positivist agenda and methodology that preceded it?

   

     Prior to the formulation of the positivist agenda, due to the lack of literature and policy developments in the area of victimology, little reference was made to this sub-discipline of criminology and early victimologists did not attempt to explain patterns of victimisation. Consequently, in the decades following the second world war, scholars such as Von Hentig, Mendelsohn, Rock and

Wolfgang began to explore and research the aetiology and characteristics of victimisation. 1 The plight of the victim I.e. the ’forgotten actor’ began to take prominence from the 1940s onwards through the introduction of scientific methodology’s so as to establish the causes of crime. I am going to focus upon this positivist tradition; assessing its particular strengths and I will also discuss the various methods employed by this notion which seek to establish the causal connections as to why some people are victimised whilst others are not. It is also important that I assess the weaknesses of this theory in order to set the scene for more important developments in this area such as to make way for a rival radical perspective. Indeed, the introduction of radical victimology appeared to be inevitable given the contentious nature of positivism itself and its insufficient ability to explain victimological patterns. By contrasting both perspectives, I am going to explain why the radical interpretation and its methodology has helped to explain the patterns of  victimisation more clearly.

    Scientific methodologies inherent within the positivist agenda include quantitative research methods and the introduction of crime surveys as opposed to the former use of police recorded figures. The main weaknesses however, are not only the fact that positivism has established itself under a narrow framework that neglected wider social issues/realities such as poverty and social marginalisation, but also due to the fact that the early crime surveys did not uncover victimisation in the workplace or the private domain (corporate/domestic victimisation).2 Indeed, by focussing upon conventional crimes, the notion of the ’hidden’ victim was still largely untouched. Therefore, radical perspectives were inevitably going to be the natural progression on the positivist agenda. (radical left realist perspectives, the feminist perspective etc), which I will discuss later.

    I am going to critically assess two definitions within the positivist victimological theory. According to Walklate; Positivist victimology ‘is a view of the data-gathering process which privileges traditional conceptions of science and scientific objectivity.’ 3

    More specifically, positivism is a philosophical concept concerned with exploring: ‘the aetiology of victimisation through the construction of victim typologies in order to categorise victims, to distinguish them from non-victims and to explain why some people appear to be more prone to victimisation than others. 4 

     The former definition is apparently concerned with the objective nature of the scientific method and premises to be ‘value free’ in nature. In this respect, Walklate appears to prefer the use of empirical evidence (which can be obtained from sources such as interviews and victim surveys), in order to establish the patterns of victimisation.

     Understandably, there is reluctance to accept the idea put forward by positivist victimologists that this theory takes a ‘value-free’ approach, predominantly due to the fact that only a narrow range of crimes are taken into account and only a narrow range of explanatory factors are offered (based on highly individualised attributes). Also, since these narrow range of conventional offences tend to be the most serious offences, the radical victimological advances were likely to be controversial simply due to the contentious nature of the offences raised by the theory of positivism itself.          

     More specifically, the latter definition draws our attention to the need for more of a subjective element to be incorporated into the positivist agenda. This is due to the fact that all of our most certain knowledge (I.e. knowledge of ourselves and our mental states), cannot be accessed by objective science. Therefore it would seem almost impossible that objective science would be able to give an accurate objective/quantitative account of the source of our own knowledge. Indeed our own knowledge is experienced, not only subjectively, but qualitatively, as opposed to quantitatively. So by categorizing victims, we are essentially reducing their experiences, and hence we are failing to acknowledge the true meaning of their experiences. We must therefore acknowledge that a new methodology was needed to develop the positivist methodology and to get to the core of the problem. One way in which this may be achieved by investigating into the plight of victims much more deeply so as to access the subjective nature of their experiences.

Join now!

     At the heart of the second definition is Von Hentig’s controversial notion of ’victim proneness,’ which suggests that some victims actively contribute to their own victimisation process I.e. the victim is not just a passive sufferer at the hands of the offender. Indeed, Von Hentig’s rigid typology includes both social categories: (children, old people and females; the mentally disabled; immigrants; minorities and ’dull normals’) alongside emotional/personality traits: (the depressed, the acquisitive, the wanton, the lonesome/heartbroken, the tormentor and the chronic ‘loser’).5 Similarly, Mendelsohns’ idea of ’victim culpability’ (idem), includes a Six-fold typology ranging from the ‘completely innocent’…to the ‘most ...

This is a preview of the whole essay