Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Bridging the Gap: A Pragmatic Approach to Understanding Critical Criminologies and Policy Influence

  • Published:
Critical Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The longstanding connection between criminological theory, research and the design and delivery of criminal justice policy has been challenged in the last 3 decades by a variety of constraints such as the rise of neoconservative attitudes, symbolic public discourses about crime, and the proliferation of capture, monitor, and detect strategies brought about by technological innovation. Building on Kevin Haggerty’s (2004. Displaced expertise: three constraints on the policy-relevance of criminological thought. Theoretical Criminology, 8(2), 211–231.) exploration of the external factors that challenge the transition from criminological theory to criminal justice policy and practice, this paper considers internal challenges that may also be relevant. By examining two recent critical criminological orientating strategies, namely left realism and constitutive criminology, the paper concludes by suggesting that an integrated perspective which draws strengths from each of these approaches could assist critical criminologists to better influence policy in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. These challenges have been well articulated by many authors including S. Cohen (1996), Garland (2001), Shichor (2000) and Christie (2004).

  2. The external constraints identified by Haggerty (2004) are might be usefully combined with the analysis provided by Mary Campbell (2000) on their implications.

  3. For more on internal developments within criminology see Leavitt (1999) and Currie (1999).

  4. For more on the War on Poverty in the US see the influence of strain theory in the work of Merton (1957), and later Cloward and Ohlin (1960). For influences in the UK such as the need for protection against the five great social ills see Walklate (2003: 96–99).

  5. For more on this see Brodeur (1999).

  6. For an interesting overview, see Kevin D. Haggerty (2004: 211–215).

  7. This point has made in a variety of ways by numerous authors including Shichor, (2000), Christie (2004), Cohen (1996) Garland (2001).

  8. The rise of what Christie has called the “Correctional-Industrial Complex” has also been documented by Cohen (1996), Shichor (2000), and Mauer (1999).

  9. Environmental criminology, rational choice theory, and routine activities theory are interrelated bodies of theory and examples of criminological knowledge that have clearly influenced the practical world. They contain clear assumptions about human nature and the nature of offending and offer cogent strategies for reducing crime.

  10. For more see Campbell (2000).

  11. Some have referred to this version as “affirmative” postmodernism, as opposed to the more critical and nihilistic “skeptical” postmodernism (Rosenau 1992; for an example in specific to criminology see Henry and Milovanovic 1996).

  12. This portrayal requires qualification. Leavitt (1999: 397) may fail to appreciate the role of Marxist thought in providing a seedbed from which many orientations and theories have since grown. Leavitt also fails to consider the contribution of arguably more practical critical perspectives such as restorative justice. Despite these criticisms, the view of critical criminology as an essentially academic endeavor cannot simply be discounted.

  13. In their follow up volume, Critical Criminology (1975) was a collection of critical essays either elaborating or otherwise developing their position but not translating it into a serious or detailed set of policy implications.

  14. While it may be useful to distinguish between various left realist developments in Australia (Brown and Hogg 1992), Canada (Lowman and MacLean, 1992), the United States (Currie 1985; DeKeseredy et al. 1997) and the United Kingdom (Matthews and Young 1992), for the purposes of this paper enough similarities exist to treat the left realist project as a coherent approach.

  15. For an introduction to the introduces many of the principles of left realism the Lea and Young’s (1984) What is to Be Done About Law and Order? Crisis in the Eighties. For a recent revision of his theory, see Young (1999) The Exclusive Society.

  16. This refers to the tendency of early radical criminologists to “romanticize crime” by redirecting the focus to the state and harms caused by the advent of “correctionalism” (see Taylor et al. 1973; Young 1987).

  17. Some have suggested that left realism’s focus on community involvement in crime prevention was ultimately unsuccessful as the public seemed to prefer interventions that either did not demand their involvement or merely required more spending and financial support. These critics point to tougher laws, mandatory sentences, increases in police patrols, target hardening, and surveillance (Michalowski 1992). While this observation has merit, the influence of left realism on policy developments especially in the UK and Canada cannot be dismissed.

  18. These include a rephrasing of older methodological critiques based on left realism’s reliance on victimization surveys (Downes and Rock 1988), critiques about its inability to develop any coherent theory of the state (Menzies 1992), and internal inconsistencies regarding the role of the state in crime management (Einstadter and Henry 1995).

  19. For more see the discussion of left realism in Walklate (2003: 48–72).

  20. See Mooney (2001), “It's the Family Stupid: New Labour and Crime”, Paper given at the Conference Law and Order: End of Term Report, Friday June 1st. Middlesex University and Young (2001).

  21. For an interesting discussion on the importance of long-term goals, short-term practices and moral pragmatism see Lowman (1992).

  22. In addition to the postmodern influence, constitutive criminology has attempted to incorporate knowledge from a number of diverse areas including cultural and media studies and theoretical physics (Henry and Milovanovic 1996; Milovanovic 2002).

  23. This refers to left realism, socialist-feminism, post-structuralism, and peacemaking criminology. The goal here was to avoid what many critical criminologists saw as an impending paradigmatic crisis (Gibbons 1992).

  24. The argument could be made that goal of constitutive criminology was not to influence policy in the first place but rather to satisfy “academic curiosity” and stretch criminology’s theoretical base. However, this really does not make sense since two chapters in the exemplar text (Henry and Milovanovic 1996) examine practical and policy implications of the orientation.

  25. Surprisingly, this notion of the eventual irrelevance of the formal centralized justice system did not prevent postmodern criminology from offering practical solutions. First, they advocate various form of “social judo” including just communities, increased offender involvement and acceptance in the community, and narrative therapies as alternatives to imprisonment, traditional methods of rehabilitation and treatment respectively (Henry and Milovanovic 1996: 220–230).

  26. There are likely many other examples of “replacement discourse” in the field of criminology like Cloward and Ohlin’s (1960) innovative suggestion of opportunity theory or Becker’s (1963) work on labeling perspective.

References

  • Arrigo, B. A., & Williams, C. R. (2006). Philosophy, crime and criminology. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, R. M. (2001). A primer on crime and delinquency theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bottoms, A. E. (1995). The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing. In C. Clarkson & R. Morgan (Eds.), The politics of sentencing reform. Oxford: ClarendonPress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodeur, J-P. (1999). Disenchanted criminology. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 41(2), 131–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D., & Hogg, R. (1992). Law and order politics—left realism and radical criminology: A view from down under. In R. Mathews, & J. Young (Eds.), Issues in realist criminology (pp. 136–176). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, R. (2001). An introduction to criminological theory. Devon: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, M. (2000). Politics and public servants: Observations on the current state of criminal law reform. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42(3), 341–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christie, N. (1977). Conflicts as property. British Journal of Criminology, 17, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christie, N. (2004). A suitable amount of crime. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cloward, R. A., & Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity: a theory of delinquent gangs. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. (1979). Guilt, justice and tolerance: Some old concepts for a new criminology. In D. Downes & P. Rock (Eds.), Deviant interpretations. Oxford: Martin Robertson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. (1996). Crime and politics: Spot the difference. British Journal of Sociology, 47(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currie, E. (1985). Confronting crime: An American challenge. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currie, E. (1999). Reflections on crime and criminology at the millennium. Western Criminology Review, 2(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeKeseredy, W. D., MacLean, B. D., & Schwartz, M. D. (1997). Thinking critically about left realism. In B. D. MacLean & D. Milovanovic (Eds.), Thinking critically about crime. Vancouver: Collective Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downes, D. M., & Rock, P. (1988). Understanding deviance: A guide to sociology of crime and rule-breaking. Oxford, NY: Claredon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einstadter, W., & Stuart, H. (1995). Theoretical criminology: An analysis of its underlying assumptions. Ft. Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of a prison. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and order in contemporary society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D., & Young, P. (1983). Toward a social analysis of penality. In D. Garland & P. Young (Eds.), The power to punish. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, D. C. (1974). The criminological enterprise. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, D. C. (1992). Society, crime and criminal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, J. (1989). Three perennial issues in the sociology of deviance. In S. F. Messner, M. D. Krohn, & A. E. Liska (Eds.), Theoretical integration in the study of deviance and crime: problems and prospects (pp. 179–195). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, D. M. (1989). Criminological theories: The truth as told by Mark Twain. Advances in criminological theory, 1, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagan, J. (1977). The disreputable pleasures. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haggerty, K. D. (2004). Displaced expertise: Three constraints on the policy-relevance of criminological thought. Theoretical Criminology, 8(2), 211–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry, S., & Milovanovic, D. (1996). Constitutive criminology: Beyond postmodernism. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, S., & Lanier, M. M. (2001). The prism of crime: Toward an integrated definition of crime. In Henry & Lanier (Eds) What is crime?: Controversies over the nature of crime and what to do about it? Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

  • Inciardi, J. A. (1980). Radical criminology: The coming crisis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leavitt, G. (1999). Criminological theory as an art form: Implications for criminal justice policy. Crime & Delinquency, 45(3), 389–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lea, J., & Young, J. (1984). What is to be done about law and order? Crisis in the eighties. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowman, J. (1992). Rediscovering crime. In J. Young & R. Matthews (Eds.), Rethinking criminology: The realist debate. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, R., & Young, J. (1992). Issues in realist criminology. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauer, M. (1999). Race to incarcerate. New York: The New Press.

  • Menzies, R. (1992). Beyond realist criminology. In J. Lowman & B. D. MacLean (Eds.), Realist criminology: Crime control and policing in the 1990s. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michalowski, R. J. (1992). A critical assessment of left realism. In J. Lowman & B. D. MacLean (Eds.), Realist criminology: Crime control and policing in the 1990s. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, J. (2001), ‘It’s the Family Stupid: New Labour and Crime’, Paper given at the Conference Law and Order: End of Term Report, Friday June 1st. Middlesex University, Retrieved from http://www.malcolmread.co.uk/JockYoung. Accessed 14 Oct 2006.

  • Muncie, J. (1999). Institutionalized intolerance: Youth justice and the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act. Critical Social Policy, 19(2), 147–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R. (1998). Achieving our country. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R. (1999). Philosophy and social hope. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenau, P. V. (1992). Post-modernism and the social sciences: Insights, inroads, and intrusions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shichor, D. (2000). Penal policies at the threshold of the twenty-first century. Criminal Justice Review, 25(1), 1–30. Spring.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, I., Walton, P., & Young, J. (1973). The new criminology: For a social theory of deviance. London: Routlege, Kegan and Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walklate, S. (2003). Understanding criminology 2nd ed., (pp. 96–99). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. Q. (1975). Thinking about crime. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, J. (1987). The tasks facing a realist criminology. In R. Matthews, & J. Young (Eds.), Issues in Realist Criminology (pp. 24–68). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, J. (1999). The exclusive society: social exclusion, crime and difference in late modernity. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, J. (2001). Winning the fight against crime? New labour, populism and lost opportunities middlesex university centre for criminology. Retrieved from http://www.malcolmread.co.uk/JockYoung/. Accessed 21 Oct 2006.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the beneficial comments and suggestions by the reviewers at Critical Criminology. This paper has been strengthened immeasurably by their input.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC, Canada, V5A 1S6

    Johannes Wheeldon & Jon Heidt

Authors
  1. Johannes Wheeldon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jon Heidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes Wheeldon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wheeldon, J., Heidt, J. Bridging the Gap: A Pragmatic Approach to Understanding Critical Criminologies and Policy Influence. Crit Crim 15, 313–325 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-007-9041-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-007-9041-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation