Throughout the post-war years the State dominated the production of knowledge in accordance with the political imperatives of the time. The wider societal consensus was that crime was viewed with distaste and a threat to the social order. The criminology of the establishment did not challenge this status quo. The official reality of order is accepted unquestionably and used as a starting point for the production of knowledge. Empiricism is a particular intellectual frame from which to view the world and criminology at this time was dominated by scientific empiricism to explain the causes of State defined crime for the purpose of developing an efficient mode of crime control. The knowledge produced from within the Home Office was largely committed to positivistic epistemological assumptions and criminological truths were defined by the social-welfare agendas (Tierney, 1996, p.70). Therefore, the extent to which criminology was able to speak truth to power was limited by the social, political and cultural factors of the time.
However, amidst the heady days of the counter-culture of the 1960’s a new radical criminology opened the floodgates for a more critical genre of criminology (Pavlich, 2001, p.155). The genesis of British critical criminology was the publication of The New Criminology, (Taylor, Walton & Young, 1973). The new deviance theorist challenged the dominant (middle-class) conceptions of crime. Namely, they challenged the common shared assumptions of what constitutes a crime and thus they represented a challenge to the consensus. They did this by appealing to criminology to study the hermeneutics and subjective meaning of crime from the perspective of the deviant.
Taylor, Walton and Young (1973) offer a scathing attack on positivism. According to Taylor et al, previously, crime was studied from the perspective of those in power from within the positivist paradigm. The positivist claim to objectivity was criticised as value-laden as it started from the premise that crime was a social problem. In addition, by accepting unquestionably the status quo it deflects attention from the unequal social relations and fails to theorise the origins of power in capitalist society. It was argued that positivism was unreflective lens that rarely examined its own particular ideologies or the ideologies of the State. Nor did it attempt to speculate on the impact and power of its own intellectual enterprise. Therefore there was an explicit rejection of existing forms of criminological knowledge and truth through so called scientific inquiry (Taylor, et al., 1973, pp.31-66). In this respect the new criminology was a welcome alternative to mainstream criminology in that it had its basis in the subjective realities of the criminal as opposed to State defined realities (Pavlich, 2001, p.155).
The subsequent publication of Critical Criminology (1975) was an explicit attempt to develop a Marxist criminology. Opposition to the positivist ideal continued and critical scholars were opposed to studying criminology as a supplementary of medicine or criminal law. The aim was to examine the ways in which the criminal justice system, professionals and institutions were used as instruments (of the ruling class) to perpetuate the existing power relations. The advent of these critical genres (labelling theory, Marxism, conflict theories and feminism) sparked theoretical and intellectual debates by exploring how deviant behaviours were defined and policed by the powerful (Tierney, 1996, p.182).
As the critical genre gathered momentum, there emerged a discourse that had the capacity to challenge dominant ideologies, power structures and examine social injustice and inequality. A classical example of criminology speaking truth to power can be seen in Hall’s (1978, cited in Downes & Rock, 2003, p.267) and colleagues’ analysis of the concept of ‘mugging’ and how it was socially constructed. Situating the theory in Marxist framework and drawing on Gramscian notions of hegemonic ideologies of the powerful the analysis was able to offer an understanding of how the powerful are able to persuade the powerless that societal problems, such as unemployment, lack of housing and crime are due to the rise in black immigration. The authors argue that the term ‘mugging’ was artificially constructed by the media and maintained by the judiciary and the police. Through the press the black mugger becomes despised as the antithesis of the hard working Englishman, a scapegoat for the class struggles, the conflicts over wealth, power, race and the destabilising of the economy. When the State loses control of the class consensus through the loss of the traditional measures of power, reverence and external enemies, as it did during the British economic decline in the 1970’s and 1980’s then the State resorts to focusing on the internal enemies. In this ‘crisis of hegemony’ the State needs to exercise its power and control, but it can’t do this without winning over the consensus of its constituents. Thus, through the media, the black mugger, the rampant trade unionist, and the welfare dependent scroungers are demonised as the internal enemy. The media becomes the vehicle in which the ideological hegemony is perpetuated. The war on crime is then legitimised (Downes & Rock, 2003, p.269).
This illustrates that criminology is a powerful tool that has the ability to challenge the political and ideological agendas of the State. By offering knowledge that resists dominant forms of truth criminology is able to critique injustices based on political motivations. Criminology has the ability to ‘detach the power of truth from forms of hegemony… within which it operates’ (Foucault cited in Faubion, 2000. p. 132).
The legacy of radical criminology has meant a critical genre that has a basis in reflexology and attempts to deconstruct the meaning of crime has been able to flourish. Critical reflection attempts to explain the emergent ideologies by connecting the criminological knowledge with social and political theory. However critical criminology has not been without its critics. It was heavily criticised because its sole purpose appeared as critique of the establishment. The scholars confined themselves to criticising positivism and functionalism. They were also criticised for focussing on exploitation and inequality. The impetus of critical criminology was to study the crimes of the powerful, white collar crimes and corporate crimes at the expense of neglecting the real social problems of which petty crimes have the greatest impact. As an academic enterprise, critical criminology’s commitment was to a utopian and idealist social reform. It failed to deal concretely with crime and its very real consequences (Swaaningen, 1998, p.6).
From the mid-nineteenth century until the 1960’s it was generally accepted that the State had sole responsibility for welfare, crime and law and order. This comfortable position was challenged by Western liberal governments. In Britain the 1979 election of the Conservative government signalled a transformation in the way in which people should be governed. By the 1980’s the shift to the right in politics brought with it a drift into an authoritarian law and order society. This was coupled with marketisation and the ascendancy of neo-liberalism. The rise in neo-liberalism signalled new ways in which society was to be governed and controlled based on economic rationalities.
The shift from welfarist to neo-liberal politics meant that criminology as an academic enterprise was forced to re-evaluate its position. The luxury of a critical genre in the production of criminological knowledge rapidly became subservient to the growing influence of government ideology and government money. (Rock, 2007, p35) In the meantime, influenced by Foucault’s (2003) work on governmentality, criminological discourse began to look at the ways in which people govern themselves, ways in which they should be governed and what governance entails. The concept of governance not only concerns the power of the State to regulate behaviour but how people can self-regulate their own behaviour.
According to Garland, (2002) the contemporary modes of exercising power depend on specific rationalities (ways of thinking) and technologies (ways of acting) for governing the conduct of conduct (Garland 2003 p.457). Garland suggests that the power of the sovereign State has been damaged due to the failure of the State agencies to control crime and provide security for their citizens. The solution to this predicament is to relinquish State sovereignty over welfare and crime control to the private and public sector. We see the emergence and dominance of the situational crime prevention, rational choice and control rationalities and the merging of the State agencies to form crime prevention partnerships. The aim is that the State no longer acts upon crime in a direct fashion but by the activation of non-State groups that work in a preventative fashion. Garland suggests that this translates into an economic form of reasoning. For example, by engaging insurance companies and private security firms that seek to reduce or absorb the cost of crime, the State is able to govern at a distance. This helps the State reduce its cost both financially and in terms of accountability (Garland, 2003 p. 460).
In this new mode of governance, State sovereignty over crime and its control is relinquished and dispersed to the private insurance company, the shopping mall managers and the individual. These new modes of governing focus on risk management and the politics of responsibilization (Garland, 2001, p.124.). The imperative is the promotion of self-regulation or technologies of self. This involves a profound recasting of the State power and the relationship between its citizens, whereby the State process of policy development and regulation has become a ‘steering’ process of governing by setting the course, rather than providing. The citizen’s task of regulation has been redefined to a process of ‘rowing’ in which citizens are expected to self-monitor their own behaviour towards the State defined goals (Crawford, 2006. p. 453). However, if the individual is unable or unwilling to self-regulate the State still holds the ultimate power and can revert to the traditional methods of social control. For example, the State still retains the ultimate in sovereign control in the institution of the prison and the State agencies such as the police and criminal justice system (technologies of domination). The message is clear self-regulate or else! Therefore, the State has created the illusion individualisation and personal choice, yet the State has retained overall power and still controls policy, finances and the means of social control. The overall power still remains with the State to coerce and sanction individuals into State defined acceptable behaviours (Crawford, 2006. p. 453).
The rise in neo-liberal political and economic rationalities has impacted on the academic institutional arrangements in which knowledge is produced and as the politics of a neo-liberal market economy gathers momentum the production of criminological knowledge is rapidly becoming subservient to political expediency and imperatives. The advancement of the new regulatory State has impacted on criminology so that crime is no longer an object of study. Instead the object of study is focused on ways in which society can be regulated. (Walters, 2003, p.21) Criminological research is primarily concerned with producing actuarial and risk management knowledges that assist economic expediency.
The impetus on privatisation and marketisation means that universities are forced to focus on prudentailism and value for money research. Universities are expected to attract research funding from external sources whether this be government or non-government the effect is the same. The researcher enters into a contract with the fee-paying client and is expected to deliver what fee-payer requires. Thus criminological research has been accused of paying lip-service to their funders. In this respect knowledge has become a commercialised commodity (Walters, 2003, p.16). Moreover, when criminological research enters into these governmental contracts they are promoting, perpetuating and legitimising the existing market-driven governing rationalities. Furthermore, the climate of consumerism, managerialism and financial accountability compromises criminology and its intellectual and political independence.
More recently, Hope and Walters, (2008) present a convincing argument that identifies various ways in which criminological knowledges that are critical of the State crime-control apparatus or present a challenge the existing social and political ideologies are silenced, marginalised or neutralised through various forms of passive resistance. The authors argue fervently that the current government do not encourage critical debate and they even go so far as to suggest a number of ways in which the government has suppressed the truth.
Criminological research has the power to challenge and the potential to change the policies and practices of the State control apparatus. Whether the individual researcher chooses to challenge or resist the demands of their institutions and their funders is becoming increasingly difficult in a market-driven competitive environment. The production of ‘knowledges of resistance’ that challenge contemporary politics and ideologies cannot be produced under contract (Walters, 2003, p.22). Yet it is important for criminology to challenge concepts of power and social order and retain intellectual autonomy. However, to do this is difficult as it needs to stand outside of lucrative market driven values. More importantly, it needs to be remembered that knowledge is an expression of power. As Hudson (2000,.p177) notes, criminology is engaged in research that produces knowledge to assist the work of the prisons, the police, the Criminal Justice System as well as the politicians and policy makers. The knowledge produced has the dangerous ability to label, stigmatise and impact on an individual’s rights and liberty. Therefore, criminology has an intimate and dangerous relationship with power (Hudson, 2000, .p177). Under these considerations criminology has an ethical and moral duty to speak truth to power.
This essay began with a brief philosophical quote that highlights the nature of truth, power and knowledge and the complex ways in which it is tied to political economic and cultural hegemony. We highlighted ways in which, historically, criminology as discipline has always had an intimate relationship with politics and the wider social and cultural climate.
We looked briefly at the radical and critical approaches that have a basis in reflexology. These critical genres are important as they present an alternative approach to the accepted realities of crime. They present an analysis of the construction and perpetuation of dominant ideologies. At the same time they can give a voice to those who were previously silenced. They represent a way in which criminology can speak truth to power.
In the current economic neo-liberal climate with the emphasis on marketisation, consumerism, managerialism and accountability we looked at ways in which academic criminology is limited in the extent it is able to speak truth to power. With the increasing emphasis on consultancy based work universities that are starved of resources are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain political independence.
Finally, criminology is an eclectic science drawing on vast areas of knowledge such as anthropology, psychology, psychiatry, medicine, economics and cultural studies and thus it draws on a number of academic disciplines. Therefore, criminology is a powerful body of knowledge that has the potential to challenge the existing power structures and forms of governance. It is capable of challenging the political agendas and ideologies which may not always be welcomed. Yet in order for criminology to speak truth to power it needs to engage in counter-hegemonic critical analysis that has the ability to counter the State defined research agendas. As Foucault notes at the beginning of this essay the task is “detaching the power of truth from the forms of hegemony, social, political, economic and cultural, within which it operates at the present time” (Foucault, cited in Faubion, 2000, p.132).
(Word count, 3237)
References
Crawford, A. (2006). Networked governance and the post-regulatory State: steering, rowing and anchoring the provision of policing and security. Theoretical Criminology, 10, 449-479.
Downes, D. & Rock, P. (2003). Understanding deviance. Forth edition: London: Oxford University Press.
Faubion, J. (2000) (Ed.).Power: the essential works of Foucault 1954-1984, third edition. London: Penguin Publishers.
Foucault, M. (2003). Governmentality. In E. McLaughlin, J. Muncie, & G. Hughes, (eds.). Criminological perspectives, second edition. (pp. 457-448). London: Sage Publications.
Hope, T. & Walters, R. (2008). Critical thinking about the uses of research. [Online monograph]. Evidence based policy series: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies: retrieved on May 12 2008 from http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/evidencebasedpolicy.html
Garland, D. (1994). The development of British criminology. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan & R. Reiner. (Eds.).The Oxford handbook of criminology. First edition (pp. 17-68). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Garland, D. (2003). Governmentality and the problem of crime: Foucault, criminology, sociology. In E. McLaughlin, J. Muncie, & G. Hughes. (eds.). Criminological perspectives, second edition. (pp.456-466). London: Sage Publications.
Hudson, B. (2000).Critical reflection as research methodology. In V. Jupp, Davis, P. & Francis, P. (Eds.). Doing criminological research. (pp.176-192) London: Sage Publications.
Rock, P. (2007). Sociological theories of crime. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan & R. Reiner. (Eds.).The oxford handbook of criminology. Fourth edition (pp. 3-42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van, Swaaningen, R. (1997). Critical criminology. Visions from Europe. London: Sage Publications.
Taylor, I., Walton, P. & Young, J. (1973). The new criminology, for a social theory of deviance. Great Britain: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Taylor, I., Walton, P. & Young, J. (1975). Critical criminology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Tierney, J. (1996). Criminology, theory and context. Great Britain: Pearson Education Limited.
Pavlich, G. (2001). Critical genres in criminology in Britain. The British Journal of Criminology. 41,150-167
Walters, R. (2003). New modes of governance and the commodification of criminological knowledge. Social and Legal studies. 12, (1), 5-26.
