left realism 30 marker Flashcards
conditions of late modernity
Changes within society increased crime:
Golden Age of Capitalism: stability, security, social inclusion – Crime low Late Modern society: instability, insecurity, social exclusion – Crime high.
A Late modern society – High crime society with a low tolerance for crime
Growing Inequalities leads to crime:
Increasing gap between rich and poor and rise of free market which encouraged individualism and a sense of relative deprivation.
3 Features of a Late Modern Society that lead to Crime:
Young – “Cultural Inclusion, Economic Exclusion”:
• The media-saturated society promotes cultural inclusion. Even the poor have access to the media’s materialistic messages.
• Greater emphasis on consumption and immediate gratification which leads to higher expectations of the ‘high life’.
• Despite the idea of meritocracy, the poor are systematically excluded from opportunities to gain the ‘glittering prizes of a wealthy society’.
Late Modern Society is a Bulimic Society that leads to crime:
Bulimic Society (Young 2003): People gorge themselves on media images of expensive consumer lifestyles, but are forced by economic circumstances to vomit out their raised expectations. This intensifies the sense of frustration, resentment and anger amongst young people at their relative deprivation.
London Riots (Lewis 2011): Found that the desire to consume by looting what was otherwise denied them in a bulimic society was a significant factor motivating some of the 13,000 to 15,000 people involved in the riots and looting in English cities in August 2011.
Late Modern Society has relative deprivation:
Young – intensified sense of relative deprivation is made worse by 3 factors of late modernity:
1. Growing Individualism.
2. Weakening of informal social controls.
3. Growing economic inequality and economic change.
Relative deprivation downwards – The result of exclusion is the rise of crime and the change in types of crime. Crime is now being committed throughout the social structure, such as the middle class committing hate crimes against WC.
Diversity in a late modern society leads to less public consensus to what is right and wrong. Informal agents of control are now less effective. This leads to harsher state controls.
Toxic Mix:
Features of late modernity combine in a toxic mix that generates crime among young people from the most deprived areas. In these communities, life is characterised by greater risk, more uncertainty, less informal control and with little outlet for their frustration and anger at being excluded from the lifestyles they aspire to. Therefore, they are more likely to engage in activities known as ‘edgework’ (Lyng, Postmodernist). This involves thrill-seeking, risk-taking behaviour. They are seeking to test the boundaries between legal and criminal behaviour which can lead to violence, anti-social behaviour, rioting and self- destructive confrontations with the law.
conditions of late modernity positive evaluation
Structural Inequalities are the root cause:
Marxism support LR– Inequality in a capitalism society is the structural root cause of crime and this needs to be tackled.
Cultural Inclusion, Economic Exclusion Support:
Young’s ideas of cultural inclusion and economic exclusion link to Merton’s notion of anomie whereby we have cultural goals, but many have blocked opportunities to achieve these by legitimate means.
Is LR Still Relevant?
At the time of writing (1980’s-90’s) this theory was validated by its arguments that the features of a late modern society (individualism, relative deprivation, instability, hyper-consumerism etc.) were actually being mirrored in increases in recorded crime.
conditions of late modernity negative evaluation
Marxism - Too much focus on working class street crime:
Marxism – Left Realist analysis is only focusing on street crime committed by WC on WC and therefore neglects the impact of the crimes of the powerful (corporate crime) and white-collar crime.
Right Realism – The root cause is NOT structural Inequalities:
Right Realism would argue that the cause of crime is not based on structural factors or economic factors but is based on individual biological differences (Wilson & Hernstein 1985), inadequate socialisation and rational choice.
Inclusion NOT Exclusion:
Downes & Rock (2003): There are actually trends towards INCLUSION not exclusion, e.g minimum wage, child benefits, ‘New Deal’ for unemployed, Social Exclusion Unit for those who are excluded.
‘Bulimic Society’ argument – anything new?
Young’s Bulimic Society argument is not going any further than Merton’s Strain Theory which was written in the 1930’s.
Widening Net of Crime:
While crime maybe declining overall, the government are creating a new crime wave – an anti-social crime wave – to replace it. Crime surveys indicate that the public are concerned with anti-social behaviour (leading to the introduction of ASBO’s in 1998 – therefore ‘incivilities’ have now become ‘crime’. This has led to a blurring of the boundaries of crime and is very much subjective in nature, or ‘in the eye of the beholder’.
Do all Working-Class Commit Crime?
Fails to explain why most deprived working-class youth don’t turn to crime. If the toxic mix is as it appears – then why isn’t there more crime and why have crime rates been decreasing in recent years rather than increasing?
Do Left Realists Understand the Reasons?
Issues in research methodology Interactionism - Hughes (1991) the lack of research and use of victimisation studies (quantitative data) has limited the Left Realist’s understanding of the motives of why people commit street crime.
Is LR still relevant
In 2011, Young noted a problem for realist explanations. Crime since the mid 1990’s had actually been falling, so therefore crime is no longer the major threat they had originally claimed. However, counter to this, Young notes that crime is a ‘social construction’ and therefore it may continue to be seen as a problem – he points out that in the 2014 Crime Survey of England and Wales, 61% through that crime had risen, not fallen.
relative deprivation
Crime is caused by:
Relative deprivation + Individualism = crime
Definitions:
Relative deprivation - Runciman (1966)
How deprived someone feels in comparison to others, or their own expectations. This can lead to resentment and crime.
Individualism is concerned with your own individual rights rather than those of the wider group. This causes crime by encouraging the pursuit of self-interest at the expense of others. Individualism is causing disintegration of families and communities by undermining the values of mutual support and encouraging selfishness.
This weakens the informal controls that groups have in exercising power over an individual, which leads to a spiral of anti-social behaviour, aggression and crime.
The paradox of modern society
Lea and Young
- society is more prosperous and there is more crime
The role of media and advertising tells us that we always ‘want/need’ more material possessions. We therefore feel worse-off through no fault of our own. Also, young black Britons may feel racism is holding them back.
relative deprivation evaluation
Marxism - Too Much focus on Working Class Crime:
Marxists argue that Left Realists fail to pay much attention to white-collar crime and corporate crime which are seen to have the most impact in deprived areas.
Non-Criminal Responses to Relative Deprivation:
Ignores other responses to relative deprivation and marginalisation apart from crime. Merton argued that ‘retreatism’ and ‘ritualism’ are ignored, however ‘rebellion’ IS recognised by Left Realists.
Over-prediction of Working-Class Crime:
This theory over predicts crime. It doesn’t explain why deprived WC DON’T turn to crime.
Right Realism - Individual Choice NOT Structural Causes:
RR Clarke’s (1980) Rational Choice theory emphasises individual choices for committing crime (reward v cost), rather than structural factors such as relative deprivation.
Subcultures
The Left Realist view of criminal subcultures is similar to Merton’s, Cohen’s and Ohlin & Coward’s concept of block opportunity and subcultural reaction to the failure to achieve mainstream goals.
Subcultures are a ‘group solution’ to relative deprivation.
Responses to Relative Deprivation:
Left Realists acknowledge that different people respond differently to the problem of relative deprivation. Some turn to crime to close the ‘deprivation gap’, some turn to religion as spiritual comfort through the ‘theodicy of disprivilege’ (Max Weber)
Ken Pryce (1979): identified a variety of subcultural responses to RD, such as hustlers (criminal), Rastafarians, ‘Saints’ (members of Pentecostal churches which promote conformity) and working class ‘respectables’
Criminal Subcultures rooted in values of society:
For Left Realists, criminal subcultures still subscribe to the mainstream goals, such as materialism and consumerism. Young (2002), found that in the ghettos of USA there was “full immersion in the American Dream: A culture hooked on Nike, Gucci and BMW”.
Legitimate opportunities were blocked, so they resort to street crime.
subcultures evaluation
Growth of Subcultures issues:
The LR use of subcultural theory means there is the assumption of a value consensus and that crime will only occur when this breaks down. This isn’t always the case, especially by those who are trying to actively challenge capitalism.
Subcultures v Drift Theory:
PM – Matza’s Drift Theory would argue that young men do not exist in committed subcultures, they just drift in and out of crime when they face boredom to express their subterranean values. The key is the search for excitement, not because of relative deprivation.
Are all Subcultures Committed to Mainstream Goals?
Not all subcultures are subscribing to mainstream goals. Within Merton’s Strain Theory there are groups of people who reject the means and goals of society (rebellion - terrorism).
Postmodernism - Subcultural Deviance in Contemporary Society?
Firstly, do we respond in subcultural groups or as individuals now?
Secondly, Postmodernists would argue that rather than a rational explanation of subculture linked to the values of society. Maffesoli (1996) argued that we need to see subcultures not in terms of ‘shared group values’, but more of one that ‘has’ values and that these subcultures are ‘fluid and changeable’. He used ‘neo-tribes’ to explain ‘states of mind’ and lifestyles which were flexible.
Marginalisation
Who are the Marginalised
Unemployed youth are marginalised groups in society.
Lea and Young (1984) argue that ‘participation in the process of production’ is the key to a group avoiding marginality as workers have clear objectives (higher wages and standard of living). They also have membership to unions to represent their views. This means there is no need to resort to violence.
Powerlessness and Resentment – Violent Crimes:
Lea and Young (1984) – The marginalised have a sense of powerlessness, resentment and frustration. They see a future that does not offer an interesting, worthwhile or rewarding life. This is expressed through criminal means to achieve their goals, such as violence and rioting (eg London Riots 2011)
This explains hostility towards the Police and confrontations with authority.
Marginalisation evaluation
A Different Perspective on WC:
Neo-Marxists agree with LR about the use of crime to express frustrations and also the meaning behind rioting.
However, Neo-Marxists would be siding with the WC and almost ‘romanticising’ of their role. This is different to LR who take a different view.
Is Marginalisation always rooted in resentment etc:
Marginalisation isn’t always the reason for crime and isn’t always rooted in resentment or frustrations.
Violent crime maybe an expression of masculinity. In addition, a huge amount of crime is being committed by those who are not marginalised, such as corporate crime (Marxism).
Right Realism – The underclass are the problem:
Right Realist, Murray (1990) would agree in terms of identifying a similar group of people who commit crime, but their view would be that the ‘underclass’ are under-socialised and this ‘new rabble’. Their view is about attributing blame onto this group rather than the LR view of understanding their powerless position in society.
What about Gender?
This theory is focused on social class and to a lesser extent ethnicity. However, what about gender as a reason for criminality (masculinity)?
Feminists would criticise LR for ignoring the crimes that women are most likely to be a victim of such as domestic violence and rape. They believe that LR is part of the ‘malestream criminology’ that only focuses on men at the expense of women.
