Postmodernist theories of crime Flashcards
General postmodernist view of crime
- society is changing so rapidly and constantly that it is marked by uncertainty and risk, and society is diverse and fragmented, with a huge variety of groups with different interests and lifestyles
- view ‘crime’ as a social construction based on a narrow legal definition, reflecting an outdated metanarrative of the law which does not reflect today’s diverse society
- people are increasingly freed from constraints arising from social norms and bonds, yet the present definition of crime is an expression of the view among those in power of how we should conduct ourselves
- the definition of crime restricts people’s freedom, self-identity and difference
- we should develop a transgressive approach, which goes beyond the usual definition of crime as simply law-breaking, and to develop a conception of crime based on respect for people’s chosen identities and lifestyles
Hate crime definition
those which are perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or disability
Transgressive approach: Crime as a social harm - Henry and Milovanovic (1996)
- suggest that crime should be reconceptualised as people using power to show disrespect for, and causing harm to, others, whether or not it is illegal, embracing all threats and risks to people pursuing increasing diverse lifestyles and identities
- 2 forms of harm
- harms of reduction - power is used to cause a victim to experience an immediate loss or injury
- harms of repression - restricting future human development (not necessarily illegal) eg harassment or hate crime
Henry and Milovanovic - harms of reduction
power is used to cause a victim an immediate loss or injury eg assault, theft
Henry and Milovanovic - harms of repression
restrict future human development
Most sociological theories (not postmodernism) explain crime and deviance in relation to social structure or a dominant ideology eg through
- marginalisation
- relative deprivation
- anomie and strain
- inadequate socialisation
- being part of a workshy welfare-dependent underclass
- subcultural values
- weakened social bond
Postmodernist explanations of the causes of crime
- society is characterised by a fragmentation of social structure and a growing diversity of values
- metanarratives of class, work and family have been replaced by uncertainty and individual choice
- people increasingly focus on themselves, often with little sense of obligation to others, which reduces constraints over committing crime
- individualism means the social causes of crime are undiscoverable
- each crime becomes a one-off event, expressing a lifestyle choice which is motivated by an infinite number of causes, including emotions such as low self-esteem
Levin and McDevitt (2008)
suggest that perpetrators of some hate crimes derive thrills, joys, excitement and pleasure and an escape from everyday routines by inflicting suffering on those they perceive to be different from themselves
Katz (1988)
talks about the ‘seductions’ of crime - it could be adrenaline-educing and give excitement and thrills
this applies especially to young people, specifically to young working-class men who may use crime as a way of winning peer group respect and status, as well as expressing their masculinity (Messerschmidt - crime as an expression of masculinity, Miller - focal concerns)
Lyng (1990) - Late modernist
studied crime as ‘edgework’, with individuals committing crime for the excitement and thrills they get from the risk-taking involved and from living ‘on the edge’ as they explore the boundaries between legal and criminal behaviour
Strengths of the postmodernist approach to crime
- recognises that there are other dimensions to the causes of crime beyond the more structural theories which have dominated sociology
- offers explanation for non-utilitarian crime such as hate crimes
- provides a fuller picture of the pattern of crime
- the transgressive conception of crime as ‘harm’ encompasses a range of behaviour which is largely neglected in the law and in sociological theories
Limitations of the postmodernist approach to crime
- doesn’t explain why some people do not use their power to harm others
- Lea (1998) suggests that traditional theories like marginality, relative deprivation and subculture still provide a useful starting point for explaining why certain groups have been denied access to less harm-causing sources of identity
- fails to recognise that consumer society can lead to resentment among those who can’t afford to participate
- fails to recognise that many people still have strong conceptions of right and wrong which underpin the law and sociological theory of crime
- Lea points out that postmodernist theories don’t add much on top of labelling theory or radical criminology, which concluded long ago that crime is a social construction
