Strain, Labelling and the New Criminology (radical) Flashcards
what is it
ruling elite and power inequality
focus on deviancy rather than crime
why were they radical
They were radical at the time as they did not unquestioningly accept crime statistics as being simple reflections of the truth.
Up until the 1940s at least, the crime data have been heavily relied upon by crime theorists and sociologists.
Crime statistics understood as ‘socially constructed’ and open to influence.
constantly changeable- not a result of pre meditated influence
- product of a negotiation process between individuals and institutions within society
- Wanted to get away from a more positivistic
- include offending that was committed by the middle classes
normlessness
– normlessness – a situation in which cultural norms break down because of rapid change.
Society is reorganised as a result of rapid change, norms and values become reorganised – What happens to the individual?- new cultural norms are being developed with no guidance on how to act - looking at the self, instead of the society
According to Durkheim, they enter this state of normlessness (anomie) that is a condition produced within the individual as a result of changes in society.- in a period of industrialisation with mass depression, unemployment etc - made people feel like they dont belong
anomie
Focus on Mertonian ‘Strain Theory’ (1938-1940s). Builds on Durkheim’s Suicide, 1897.
Anomie is often referred to these days as part of strain.
Anomie derived from the work of Emile Durkheim (French Professor of sociology, economist, philosopher – not a criminologist (talked about deviancy))
Anomie refers to a sense of normlessness
- “condition in which society provides little moral guidance to individuals”.
Anomic suicidies
Identified the concept of Anomie through a study of suicide in France (rapid structural changes happening at the time due to industrialisation, reorganisation of society, and how that had impacted on suicide rates).
Referred to these suicides as ‘Anomic Suicides’
criticisms of anomie / strain
Despite being critical of the use of official statistics, continues to rely heavily on statistics (bias of recording crime of lower classes)
too much emphasis on lower class
micro Level theory - conceptualised in individual terms only (American dream)
can’t account for rape, criminal damage or non premeditated murder
assumes one dominant cultural value system - motivated by America dream
anomie today
However, Anomie Theory is still incredibly useful and influential and has seen a revival of late:
Robert Agnew’s (1985) Revised Strain Theory (general strain theory) provided nuance to Merton’s work.
It is not that people commit crime or deviancy because they can’t achieve cultural goals, rather when they find themselves in situations where they feel trapped or disempowered.
Anomie produced as a response to aversive situations (emotion-based response)
Agnew
Used self-report offending data to show that people who feel like their lives are more constrained (or lack agency) start to become involved in expressive offending (vandalism, gang).
Tried to subtly reorganise Merton’s idea of strain to explain crime among certain groups (youthful crimes by males).
Institutional Anomie Theory (Messner & Rosenfeld, 1994).
Some people are more likely to become involved in crime if they feel that the large institutions of society (police, gov, CJS) themselves engage in wrongdoing, or not doing enough to fix wrong-doing, uncaring..
Relationship between individual reaction and decision-making process and how this is linked to the behaviours of the institutions.
Karstedt and Farrall’s ‘Institutional Anomie’ model
How does this idea of institutional anomie link to crimes that happen in the marketplace?
went to large number of people with surveys and asked questions to question this eg how much do profits matter? is money the most important to you? do you think you commit these crimes because of monetary gain?
then they asked do you think society has sigfnificantly changed since you were younger? do you feel alone in society?
tried to measure anomie - found that when people have -ve response to these questions they had higher rates of institutional anomie which lead to committing marketplace crime
labelling
Not really seen as a theory. It does not have a theory of causation.
why are deviant actions being repeated?
emphasises the social processes through which ‘deviant’ people are classified and categorised
how people react to that label by internalising it and acting in accordance with that label.
The idea that individuals can live up to a label that is applied to them.- self fulfilling prophecy
Moved on from anomie and strain in the 1940s and 1960s although the origins can be traced back to the 1930s in the work of the Chicago School and symbolic interactionalism.
who applies labels? the government, media, elite - uneuqal distribution of powe
different because it suggested that only a small proportion of people in society have power to create a label- powerful people benefit as they determine deviancy
Frank Tannenbaum
argued that officially labelling someone as delinquent can result in them becoming the thing they are labelled as.
why did labelling grow in 1960’s
The growth in social sciences and interest in criminology in the UK and the US.
Investment in qualitative methodologies (unpack the bigger processes Merton and Durkheim spoke about)
Dissatisfaction with old theories (too structuralist, too focused on lower class crime, too reliant on official stats).
Recognition of middle-class delinquency which was not officially sanctioned (tied in with growing use of self-report surveys).
Lemert
Labelled person ‘internalises’ this label and starts to live up to the label (secondary deviancy, Lemert). – ‘Self-fulfilling prophecy’
Mirza
People can resist labelling
in ‘Young, Female and Black ‘ (1992) - a ‘myth of under-achievement’ for black women – resistant to label and achieved better than black boys and white students generally
Labelling - policy implications
n relation to UK studies (see McAra and McVie, Euro. Jnl. Of Criminology, 2007 (young people who grew up in Edinburgh), Farrington 1977/78 (the Cambridge study of delinquency development (young men who grew up in London)).
Both explored the likelihood of people becoming engaged in crime after being arrested (after secondary deviancy has been asserted and labelling had happened).
Found that taking young people to court resulted in labelling and likely made them reoffend. Made them more likely to come into contact with CJS repeatedly.
A policy implication of that is ‘radical non-interventionism’.
Deliberately declassify some acts as crimes,(with the intention that they will not be seen as criminals) or divert people from CJS so that they won’t become ‘intrenched offenders’).
Labelling critiques
doesn’t address primary cause of crime - How can ‘primary deviance’ really exist if deviance is a result of labelling? Ignored origins of primary deviancy.
portrays people as passively accepting labels - deterministic
focuses on minor crimes without victims and on lower class criminality - not crimes of powerful
New criminology
Started in UK in early 1970s. Took it’s title from a book by Taylor et al. – ‘The New Criminology’ (1976)
Largely a critique of classical, positivistic criminology and labelling/interactionism – argued that these were too deterministic.
Also saw value in the labelling perspective and felt crime was a social construct in many ways but wanted to forge this together with Marxism.
new crim
even more radical - attempted to marry interactionist and structural approaches to crime - focus on on political economy, class and state – a “fully social theory of deviance”- holistic
macro interaction level
A lot of crime is political – either consciously or unconsciously.
Move to try and understand the causes of crime again from a more criminological perspective (less sociological).
However, the New Criminology was also an attempt to:
Promote a radical political agenda based on Marxism (social and economic philosophy approach, interested in class AND the unequal distribution of power that arises within classes).
Highlight inequalities which underlay deviancy and crime (particularly questions of who got victimised??).
new crim critiques
Crime not a category in Marxist thought (it is an ideological construction). According to Marx, crime is a social construct and studying ‘crime’ perpetuates this idea that doesn’t really exist. Perpetuating this myth.
Did not develop insights about gender. Interested in class based divisions (intersect with race and ethnicity) but not gender.
Aims to develop an understanding of crime based on socialist principles (did not really follow through as an effective theory)
HOWEVER
Focus on agency and structure did last and still inspires much thinking and research
