Left Realism Flashcards
Left realism
Developed during the 80’s and 90’s. Like Marxists, left realists see society as an unequal capitalist one. However, unlike Marxists they are reformist socialists; they believe in gradual change rather than the violent overthrow of capitalism as the way to achieve greater equality.
They believe we need explanations of crime that will lead to practical strategies for reducing it now, rather than waiting for a revolution and a classless society to abolish crime!
Aetiological crisis
Aetiological crisis:
Part of the left realists’ project of taking crime seriously is to recognise that, from the 1950’s on, there was a real increase in crime, especially W/C crime.
Young (2011) suggested that crime was a result of many factors interactions with one another- multiple aetiology
No single factor is the cause of crime- crime is the result of a mixture of informal and formal social controls, structural inequalities and the agency of the offender
The causes of crime
Lea & Young (1984) identify three related causes of crime:
1) Relative deprivation
2) Subculture
3) Marginalisation
Relative deprivation
For Lea & Young, crime has its roots in deprivation. However, deprivation itself is not directly responsible for crime. E.G: Poverty was rife in the 1930’s, yet crime rates were low. By contrast, since the 50’s living standards have risen, but so too has the crime rate.
It refers to how deprived someone feels in relation to others, or compared with their own expectations. It can lead to crime when people resent others unfairly having more and resort to crime to obtain what they feel entitled to.
Relative deprivation 2
Lea & Young explain the paradox that today’s society is both more prosperous and more crime-ridden. Although people are better off, they are now more aware of relative deprivation due to the media and advertising, which raise everyone’s expectations for material possessions.
However, relative deprivation alone does not necessarily lead to crime. For Young (1999), ‘the lethal combination is relative deprivation and individualism’. Individualism is a concern with the self and one’s own individual rights, rather than those of the group. HOW DO YOU THINK THIS CAUSES CRIME?
For left realists this is all causing the disintegration of families and communities by undermining the values of mutual support and selflessness on which they are based. It weakens the informal controls such groups exercise over individuals!
Subculture
For left realists, a subculture is a group’s collective solution to the problem of relative deprivation.
However, different groups will respond differently.
For left realists, subcultures still subscribe to the values and goals of mainstream society, such as materialism and consumerism.
E.G: As Young (2002) notes, there are ghettos in the USA where there is ‘full immersion in the American Dream: A culture hooked on Gucci. BMW, Nikes’. However, the opportunities to achieve these goals legitimately are blocked, so they resort to street crime!
Marginalisation
Marginalised groups lack both clear goals and organisations to represent their interests.
Being powerless means to improve their position, they express their frustration through criminal means such as violence and rioting.
The time of the media, government and social institutions impact on the marginalisation of groups leading to feeling left out or left behind
Late modernity, exclusion and crime
Young (2002): We are now living in the stage of late modern society.
Late modern society= instability, insecurity and exclusion which make the problem of crime worse!
Young compares the 50’ and 60’s as a time of prosperity, stability and low crime rates against today’s society (since the 70’s) where insecurity and exclusion have increased.
De-industrialisation and the loss of unskilled jobs have increased unemployment, especially for young people and ethnic minorities, while many jobs are now short term or low paid.
Impact of late modernity
These changes have destabilised family and community life, as have New Right government policies to hold back welfare spending. This has all contributed to increased exclusion of those at the bottom!
Meanwhile, greater inequality between right and poor and the spread of market values encouraging individualism have increased the sense of relative deprivation.
The result
The amount and types of crime are changing. Firstly, crime is found increasingly throughout the social structure, not just at the bottom. It is also nastier, with an increase in ‘hate-crimes’- often the result of relative deprivation downwards, as in the case of racist attacks against asylum seekers.
Reactions to crime are also changing. There is less consensus on right and wrong, so that the boundary between ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ becomes blurred.
Informal controls become less effective a families and communities disintegrate and this makes the public more intolerant and leads to demands for harsher penalties. In summary, late modern society is a high- crime society with a low tolerance for crime.
The falling crime rate: a second aetiological crisis
In a later study, Young (2011) points to a ‘second aetiological crisis’, or crisis of explanation. Originally, the first crisis was the failure of existing theories to explain the increase in crime from the 50’s-90’s.
However, since the 90’s, the crime rate has fallen substantially. This is a problem for realist explanations, because it suggests that crime is no longer the major threat they had originally claimed.
However, Young notes that because crime is a social construction, it may continue to be seen as a problem. E.G: The Crime Survey for England and Wales (2014) found that 61% thought crime had risen, not fallen!
The rising anti social behaviour
Crime surveys also show a high level of public concern about anti-social behaviour.
Young sees this as a result of ‘defining deviance up’. Since the 90’s, governments have aimed to control a widening range of behaviour, introducing ASBOs in 1998 and IPNAs (Injunctions to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance) in 2015. These measures have several key features:
Tackling crime: policing and control
Left realists argue that we must both improve policing and control, and deal with the deeper structural causes of crime.
Kinsey, Lea & Young (1986): The police clear-up rates are too low to act as a deterrent to crime and that police spend too little time actually investigating crime.
They argue that the public must become more involved in determining the police’s priorities and style of policing.
Military policing
WHO do the police depend on to provide them with information about crimes?
(90% of crimes known to the police are reported to them by the public)
However, the police are losing public support, especially in inner-cities and among ethnic minorities and the young. As a result, the flow of information dries up and the police have to rely on ‘military policing’ tactics such as ‘swamping’ an area and using stop and search tactics.
What does military policing mean
This alienates communities and results in a vicious circle: locals no longer trust the police and don’t provide them with information, so the police resort to military policing, and so on!
Left realists argue that policing must be made accountable to local communities and deal with local concerns. They claim that routine beat patrols are ineffective and stop and search tactics cause conflict.
Police need to improve their relationship with local communities by spending more time investigating crime, changing their priorities and involving the public in making policing policy.
Crime control cannot be left to the police alone
Left realists claim that a multi-agency approach is needed.
This would involve agencies such as local councils’ social services, housing departments, schools and leisure services, as well as voluntary organisations and victim support, and the public!
Tackling the structural causes
However, left realists do not see improved policing and control as the main solution. In their view, the causes of crime lie in the unequal structure of society and major structural changes are needed if we want to reduce crime.
Deal with inequality and unfairness of rewards
Tackle discrimination
Provide jobs for everyone
Improve housing and community facilities
Become more tolerant of diversity and stop stereotyping whole groups!
Left realism and government policy
Left realists have had more influence on government policy that most theorists on crime. Their views have strong similarities with the 1997-2010 New Labour government’s stance of being ‘tough on crime’, ‘tough on the causes of crime’.
E.G: New Labour’s firmer approach to policing hate crimes, sexual assaults and domestic violence along with ASBOs, echoed left realist concerns to protect vulnerable groups from crime and low-level disorder.
Evaluation of left realism
Henry & Milovanic (1996) argues that left realism accepts the authorities’ definition of crime as being street crime committed by the poor, instead of defining the problem as being one of how powerful groups do harm to the poor. Marxists argue that it fails to explain corporate crime, which is much more harmful.
Interactionists argue that, because left realists rely on quantitative data from victim surveys, they cannot explain offenders’ motives.
Their use of subcultural theory means left realists assume that value consensus exists and that crime only occurs when this breaks down.
Relative deprivation cannot fully explain crime because not all those who experience it commit crime. The theory over-predicts the amount of crime.
Its focus on high-crime inner-city areas gives an unrepresentative view and makes crime appear a greater problem than it is.
Similarities of right and left realism
Both see crime as a real problem.
Fear of crime is rational
Differences of right and left realism
Different ends of the political spectrum. Right realists are neo-conservatives, while left-realists are reformist socialists.
Right realists explain crime by blaming lack of self-control whilst left realists blame structural inequalities.
The right prioritise social order with a tough stance against offenders, whilst the left prioritise justice achieved through democratic reform.
