Cultural criminology has shown very little development over the past two centuries and still appears to be grounded in Western cultural experiences. Hence, whilst this may seem appropriate in helping to shape the views of Third World criminologists, it appears to be lacking modernity. Consequently, it seems as though much of the existing criminological standpoints needs to be overcome in order to identify the different conceptions and responses to crime more effectively. Furthermore, it will also be shown how culture shapes the discipline of criminology itself.
IntroductionCultural criminology is important in helping one to understand crime; however, many have questioned whether cultural criminology is merely an advance on earlier forms of criminological theorizing. It will thereby be assessed whether developments in cultural criminology are advancements upon older or ‘classical’ forms of criminology by evaluating the relative strengths and contributions of cultural criminology to current discourse. This will be done by looking at the different theoretical approaches and determining whether there has been much development beyond the earlier forms of criminological theorizing.
Literature ReviewWhat is cultural criminology?
Cultural criminology helps one to understand crime in the context of its culture through methodological, theoretical and interventionist approaches.[1] Cultural criminology thereby views crime and crime control as cultural products that can be affected by power and shaped by culture. It has been said, nonetheless, that developments in cultural criminology are merely advancements upon older or classical forms of criminology. In accordance with this, it has been pointed out by Banks that; “there has developed an awareness of the need to overcome culturally formed standpoints”[2] and further consideration needs to be made as to how culture shapes the control of criminology. Accordingly, because there are many different cultures, it is important that cultural criminologists seek “specificity” when analysing specific cultures in order to be able to fully understand and explain crime. Not all agree with this, however, and instead it has been argued by Nguy that; “Contemporary culture is saturated with accounts and images of crime that circulate both within and across nation states.”[3] She went on to further add that; “under the banner of cultural criminology there has been a major contemporary revival of international interest in the relations between criminal transgression and cultural spheres.”[4] Arguably, it is evident from these contentions that the main body of work on cultural criminology comes from earlier forms of criminological theorizing, such as modernization theory and underdevelopment theory.
What are the earlier forms of criminological theorizing
Cultural criminology is an emergent orientation in sociology, criminology, and criminal justice that “explores the convergence of cultural and criminal processes in contemporary social life.”[5] This is done by merely drawing on the perspectives from existing cultural studies and determining how crime is impacted by culture. Cultural criminology traditionally recognizes that cultural ethnographies and artifacts are integral for understanding human social behaviour and that in order to understand the interplay between crime and crime control, one needs to analyze the ways in which mankind makes sense of social structures. Cultural theorists’ views are therefore dynamic and are thus offer a way of viewing other forms of trangressive and criminal behaviour. Accordingly, cultural criminology dates back to the 1990’s, though much of the theoretical thinking behind it is drawn from historical theoretical viewpoints. Consequently, Modernists believe that factors such as urbanization, migration and social organization significantly alter the way individuals behave and that criminal behavior occurs as a result of these influencers. Hence, it was argued by Clinard and Abbott that criminal behaviour is impacted by internal social factors such as “urbanization, social organization in slums, migration, differential association and peer group structures.”[6] In effect, modernists view crimes as part of the evolutionary process of underdeveloped countries and are of the assumption that this process is what turns traditional societies into modern societies. This is because informal controls are ultimately replaced with formal controls through the creation of government policies. Accordingly, crime is a learned process that occurs as a result of poverty and a denial of opportunity, which in turn leads to criminal activity. Not all agree with this, however, and instead argue that Clinard and Abbott assume that geographical regions are distinctive, and yet they still apply the same criminological theories to each region. Furthermore, Clinard and Abbott also rely heavily on crime statistics to support their findings which can be unreliable since “the difference between the developed and developing countries lies in crime rates not in the general causes of crime.”[7] Despite these problems, however, modernists still believe that the use of crime statistics are appropriate and that crime control is “characterised by attitudes, beliefs and assumptions in Western culture”[8] and that “high crime rates are now regarded as ‘normal’ facts.”[9] Underdevelopment theory, on the other hand, is based upon the view that crime and justice in underdeveloped countries have been neglected and should therefore be linked to the “processes and effects of underdevelopment.”[10] Sumner is largely critical of modernist theory since he believes that modernists fail to take into account history, power and international and social relations: “criminal law and criminal action are very much the expressions of social conflicts and contradictions and are two of the key forces for stabilising confliction social relations.”[11] In light of the modernization and underdevelopment theories, however, it seems as though existing cultural criminology is largely western based in that internal and external factors are focused upon as a way to describe crime and crime control. Nevertheless, these theories take no account of culture and as put by Banks; “there is a need for a new approach to the study of crime in the Third World.”[12]
Arguments for Cultural Criminology being an advance on earlier forms of criminological theorizing?
It is believed by many that cultural criminology is rather outmoded because of the fact that it is based largely upon earlier forms of criminological theorizing. As a result of this, much of its theoretical underpinnings are contested. Hence, whilst some believe that crime can be explained by “relying on notions of opportunities on the one side, and lack of control on the other,[13] cultural criminologists focus on the; “sensual nature of crime, the adrenaline rushes of edgework – voluntary illicit risk-taking and the dialectic of fear and pleasure.”[14] The interplay between crime and crime control is the main focus of cultural criminologists, yet there is a lack of focus on the interplay between the media, crime and crime control. Because of this, it is believed that cultural criminologists do not provide an understanding of crime and criminal justice and as noted by Lily et al; “a model that can account for a world so saturated with media technology and media images that distinctions between a crime and its meditated image is often lost.”[15] This is because, at present cultural criminology relies heavily on traditional models when examining the causes of crime, yet these models do not account for media influences and so cannot be considered reliable. Furthermore, whilst cultural criminology contests the methods used by conventional criminology, no alternative methods are being provided, which again highlights the inadequacy of cultural criminology. In addition, cultural criminologists appear to be politically rather than analytically motivated and do not provide an accurate reflection of crime and crime control. Because of this, it has been said that many of the underlying issues that relate to crime and crime control have in fact been disguised.
This is evidenced by the over-reliance by cultural criminologists on modernisation theory and underdevelopment and it has been argued that a new approach to the study of crime in the Third World is needed.[16] Hence, it has been said that much of today’s criminological theorizing lacks specificity and is therefore empirically untestable.[17] As a result, it seems as though specificity needs to be advanced a lot more that it is being in order to prevent criminological theories from becoming outmoded. This can be seen in relation to gender because although gender is used to distinguish males from females in society, there are many cultures that recognise males as having different roles than females. This leads to many issues arising in relation to inequality and as noted by Walkate; “gender issues have been hidden by criminology.”[18] Despite this, however, it was evidenced by Walkate that that there are various ways in which “feminists have attempted to make those issues visible”[19] by highlighting the fact that males are more likely to commit crimes than females are. Because of this, inequality exists and men are often treated differently to women when criminal offences are committed. This is exemplified by the fact that women receive more lenient sentences that men which is unjustifiable, yet Gelsthorpe believes that this is partly due to organisational influences by practitioners in the punishment and prevention of crime.[20] This view is widely contestable, though it is manifest that the treatment between men and women is extremely disproportionate. It is doubtful that this explains why crime is more likely to be committed by males, however, and it seems as though cultural influences generally shape the way individuals behave. It has nonetheless, been questioned by Steffensmeier and Allan whether; “traditional sociological theories of crime explain female crime and the gender gap in crime”[21] though it is believed that the problem largely stems from “stereotypes about women being more innocent, more reformable and less dangerous than men.”[22] Not all would agree with this, however, and unless the issues surrounding gender and crime are sufficiently dealt with crime control will not be effectuated.
In effect, whilst cultural criminology provides sound explanations of crime and crime control, these explanations can become outdated in late modernity where social exclusion and inclusion appear to have become blurred. Hence, we now appear to live in a bulimic society and unless cultural criminology understands this, the views of criminologists will become completely irrelevant. This is because, as noted by Young; “the social order of the advanced industrial world is one which engulfs its members. It consumes and culturally assimilates masses of people through education, the media and participation in the market place.”[23] Accordingly, it has been said that social exclusion and crime are often interlinked in that they are both caused by poverty and low incomes. How social inclusion can be achieved is questionable but there have been significant efforts to confine social exclusion: “In recent years the European Union has had an increasing interest and competence in social policy, even though, under subsidiarity, social policies themselves – including policies to maintain and raise social inclusion have been and still are the responsibility of Member States.”[24] Conversely, some would also argue that too much inclusion can also increase crime rates “crime is also a problem of too much social inclusion: a sort of extreme indoctrination into the values or antivalues of what Young calls our ‘turbo-consumerism.”[25] Although this may be the case, it is evident that those who are socially excluded from the rest of society are more likely to commit criminal offences than those who are socially included.
Arguments against cultural criminology being an advance on earlier forms of criminological theorizing
Not all agree that cultural criminology is merely advance on earlier forms of criminological theorizing and instead argue that cultural criminologists are capable of providing accurate theories of crime. This was recognised by Kane when it was pointed out that cultural criminology is able to discover the different ways in which crime practice and crime control connect in modern society.[26] Accordingly, today’s cultural criminologists thereby believe that cultural criminology is: “the placing of crime and its control in the background of culture; that is, observing both crime and the organization of control as cultural products –as inspired creations.”[27] Arguably, cultural criminology thereby provides criminologists with the ability to reinforce their own ideas by looking at traditional forms and thus extending them into theories that reflect the realities of crime within today’s society. Many cultural criminologists such as Ferrell & Sanders[28] thus provide new theories of crime in order to discover the the true meaning of cultural and crime in current social life. Cultural criminologists thereby view criminological theorizing as interlinking with crime and crime control in contemporary social arrangements. Therefore, cultural criminology is important in laying down the centrality of meaning and demonstration in the structure of crime as a temporary occurrence and social issue and although earlier forms of criminological theorizing are identified, it is suggested that these are not merely advancements and are instead contemporary accounts of cultural criminology.
ConclusionOverall, cultural criminology is important in helping one to understand crime and crime control by looking at the different methodological, theoretical and interventionist approaches. Essentially, whilst cultural criminologists argue that crime is largely influenced by power and shaped by culture, many of the underlying perspectives of cultural theorists are simply advancements upon older or classical forms of criminology. As a result, further advancements need to be made to cultural criminology in order to prevent their stances from becoming outmoded in this new globalised world. Hence, it is believed that cultural criminology disguises many underlying issues relating to gender and crime and that as a result of this it is difficult to explain crime through cultural criminology and gender, which leaves many underlying issues existing. In effect, further emphasis needs to be placed upon the factors that can influence crime within a society in order to fully explain crime and crime control, yet this cannot be achieved if modern approaches to cultural criminology are not being utilised.
BibliographyBooks
Colin Sumner, (1982) ‘Crime, Justice and Underdevelopment: Beyond Modernisation Theory’ London, Heinmann.
Craig Webber, (2007) ‘Background, foreground, foresight: The Third Dimension of Cultural Criminology’ Crime, Media and Culture, Sage Publications.
Jeff Ferrell., Keith Hayward and Young Jock, (2008) Cultural Criminology: An Investigation. Los Angeles: SAGE.
J Robert Lily, Francis T Cullen and Richard A Ball, (2010) ‘Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences, SAGE, Social Science.
Old Bailey, (2011) ‘Gender in the Proceedings’, The Proceedings of the Old Bailey Londons Criminal Court, 1674 to 1913, < http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/Gender.jsp#gendercrime> accessed 11 April 2013.
M Clinard and D Abbott, (1973) Crime in Developing Countries: A Compatative Perspective. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
S Walklate, (2007) Understanding Criminology: Cu rrent Theoretical Debates (Crime and Justice). Open University Press, 3rdEdition, 3.
Journals
B Atkinson, (2004). Indicators and Targets for Social Inclusion in the European Union. 42 JCMS 1,
B Wheeler, (2006). The Politics of Exclusion. BBC News,
A Ross, (2005) ‘The UK Approach to Delivering Sustainable Development in Government: A Case Study in Joined up Working’ 17 Journal of Environmental Law 1.
Christy Nguy, (2012) ‘Cultural Criminology: Transgression, Violence, Imagery’ University of Western Sydney
Cyndi Banks, ‘Developing Cultural Specificity for a Cultural Criminology’ Chapter One.
Darrell Steffensmeier and Emilie Allan, (1996) ‘Gender and Crime: Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending’ Annual Review of Sociology, Volume 22.
Ferrell J. (1999) Cultural Criminology, pages 395-418, Annual Review Of Sociology. Vol.25.
Jeff Ferrell, (1999) ‘Cultural Criminology’ Annual Review of Sociology, Volume 25.
J Young, (2003). Merton with Energy, Katz with Structure: The Sociology of Vindictiveness and the Criminology of Transgression. Theoretical Criminology,
Mike Presdee, (2004) ‘Cultural Criminology: The Long and Winding Road’ Theoretical Criminology, Volume 8, No 27.
O’ Brien, M. (2005) What is cultural about cultural criminologyBritish Journal Criminology, 599.
S Kane, (1998) AIDS Alibis: Sex, Drugs and Crime in the Americas. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 3.
S Maruna, (2008). Review Symposium: Merton with Energy, Katz with Structure, Jock Young with Data. Theoretical Criminology, < http://www.shaddmaruna.info/pdf/Jock%20Young%20review.pdf> accessed 17 March 2013.
Tim Owen, (2007) ‘Culture of Crime Control: Through a Post-Foucauldian Lens’ Internet Journal of Criminology,
