abolition definitionuk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/... · abolition definition in...

ABOLITION

Definition

In criminology and criminal justice, the term‘abolition’ currently refers to the attempt todo away with punitive responses to criminal-ized problems. It is the first step in the aboli-tionist strategy, followed by a plea for disputesettlement, redress and social justice. In moregeneral terms it refers to the abolition of state(supported) institutions which are no longerfelt to be legitimate. Historically, the term abo-lition has been used in the fight against slavery,torture, prostitution, capital punishment andprison.

Distinctive Features

Though the literal meaning of the verb ‘toabolish’ suggests differently, penal abolitionshould not be interpreted in absolute terms.Abolitionists do not argue that the police orcourts should be abolished. The point is thatcrime is not to be set apart from other, non-criminalized, social problems and that thesocial exclusion of ‘culprits’ seldom solvesproblems. Instead, crime problems shouldbe treated in the specific context in whichthey emerge and reactions should be orientedaround reintegration, rather than exclusion.Neither do abolitionists argue against socialcontrol in general terms. It is indeed hard toimagine social coexistence without any formof social control. The problem is the top-down,repressive, punitive and inflexible characterof formal social control systems. It is these

specific characteristics of penal controlwhich are to be abolished (Bianchi and vanSwaaningen, 1986).

Abolitionists question the ethical calibre ofa state that intentionally and systematicallyinflicts pain upon other people. They point outthat, because generally accepted goals ofgeneral and special prevention cannot besupported with empirical data, the credibilityof the whole penal rationale is at stake.Depenalization (pushing back the punitivecharacter of social reactions) and decriminali-zation (against the labelling of social problemsas crimes) are the central strategies of aboli-tion. Stan Cohen (1988) has identified fiveother ‘destructuring moves’ which are part ofthe politics of abolition: decarceration (awayfrom prison), diversion (away from the institu-tion), decategorization (away from offendertypologies), delegalization (away from the state)and deprofessionalization (away from theexpert). In a next, positive or reconstructivephase, a distinction is made between abolition-ism as a way of thinking (an alternative way ofunderstanding the problem of crime and pun-ishment), and as a way of acting (a radicalapproach to penal reform).

In their attempts at depenalization, aboli-tionists first pointed their arrows at the prisonsystem. This struggle has its roots in prison-ers’ movements or a religiously inspired penallobby (Mathiesen, 1974; van Swaaningen,1997). During the early 1980s, the attentionshifted to the pros and cons of non-custodialmeasures as alternatives to prison. Warningsagainst the net-widening effects were con-trasted with their potential value in the

A

01-Muncie-A.qxd 10/18/2005 10:27 AM

attrition of the penal system. The recognitionthat sanctioning-modalities at the end ofthe penal chain do not change its punitive,excluding character, focused attention onthe diversion of cases in preliminary phases,with the aim of preventing the stigmatizingeffects of both trial and punishment. Thisphase was followed by the advocacy of awhole alternative procedural rationale, inwhich non-punitive responses to social prob-lems were promoted, including forms ofsocial crime prevention designed to addressthe structural contexts of crime (de Haan,1990).

Notably, Nils Christie’s and Louk Huls-man’s abolitionist perspectives contain manyimplicit references to Habermas’s idea of the‘colonization of the lifeworld’. The ‘decol-onization’ of criminal justice’s ‘system ration-ality’ is another object of abolition. Thoughthe tension Habermas observes betweensystems and lifeworlds does not lead himdirectly to a rejection of the criminal justicesystem, he does argue against the degenerationof criminal justice into a state-instrument ofcrime control in which the critical dimensionof power is ignored. Thus, penal instrumen-talism is another object of abolition whichcan be derived from Habermas.

A further aim of abolition is related tothe constitution of moral discourse. InWestern, neo-liberal societies values like careand empathy are delegated to the privatesphere and are thereby excluded from public,or political, ethics. These latter ethics aredominated by abstract, so-called ‘masculine’notions such as rights, duties and respect,which outrule more subjective, contextuallydetermined ‘feminine’ notions such as careand empathy. The dominance of abstractapproaches of rights results in a morality ori-ented at a generalized other, whereas a femi-nist approach is oriented at a concrete other.Thus, abolitionism also implies the abolitionof the ‘masculine’, individualistic, neo-liberalvalues upon which our penal systems arebuilt (van Swaaningen, 1989).

René van Swaaningen

Associated Concepts: abolitionism, commu-nity justice, critical criminology, deconstruc-tion, redress, the state

Key Readings

Bianchi, H. and van Swaaningen, R. (eds)(1986) Abolitionism: Towards a Non-Repressive Approach to Crime. Amsterdam,Free University Press.

Cohen, S. (1988) Against Criminology. NewBrunswick, NJ, Transaction.

de Haan, W. (1990) The Politics of Redress:Crime, Punishment and Penal Abolition.London, Unwin Hyman.

Mathiesen, T. (1974) The Politics of Abolition.London, Martin Robertson.

Van Swaaningen, R. (1989) ‘Feminism andabolitionism as critiques of criminology’,International Journal for the Sociology ofLaw, 17 (3), pp. 287–306.

Van Swaaningen, R. (1997) Critical Crimi-nology – Visions From Europe. London, Sage.

ABOLITIONISM

Definition

A sociological and political perspective thatanalyses criminal justice and penal systemsas social problems that intensify rather thandiminish crime and its impact. On this basisprisons (the initial focus of study) reinforcedominant ideological constructions of crime,reproduce social divisions and distract atten-tion from crimes committed by the powerful.Abolitionists advocate the radical transforma-tion of the prison and punishment systemand their replacement with a reflexive andintegrative strategy for dealing with thesecomplex social phenomena.


Liberal approaches to the study of the prisonare built on a number of often competingand contradictory goals: rehabilitation, generalprevention, incapacitation, punishment and

THE SAGE DICTIONARY OF CRIMINOLOGY

2

01-Muncie-A.qxd 10/18/2005 10:27 AM

individual and collective deterrence.Abolitionism, which emerged out of thesocial movements of the late 1960s challengesthese liberal perspectives by arguing that thecriminal justice system and prisons in prac-tice contribute little to the protection of theindividual and the control of crime. In thewords of the Dutch abolitionist Willem deHaan, the prison ‘is counter productive, diffi-cult to control and [is] itself a major socialproblem’. Crime is understood as a complex,socially constructed phenomenon which‘serves to maintain political power relationsand lends legitimacy to the crime controlapparatus and the intensification of surveil-lance and control’ (de Haan, 1991, pp. 206–7).At the same time abolitionists are critical ofthe unquestioning acceptance by liberals ofprison reform. For abolitionists like ThomasMathiesen liberal reform can never have apositive effect because it reinforces and bol-sters the system, thus perpetuating processesof brutalization for the confined. Alternatively,‘negative reforms’ are supported for theirpotential to challenge and undermine thesystem leading eventually to the demise ofprisons. Abolitionists advocate a system thatdeals with crime as a socially constructedphenomenon. Crime should be respondedto not by the negativity of a system built onpunitive exclusion but on a reflexive andparticipatory system of inclusion built onredress, social policy, mutuality and solidar-ity. ‘The aim is compensation rather thanretaliation; reconciliation rather than blameallocation. To this end, the criminal justicesystem needs to be decentralized and neigh-bourhood courts established as a complementor substitute’ (de Haan, 1991, pp. 211–12).Abolitionism therefore ‘implies a negativecritique of the fundamental shortcomingsof the criminal law to realize social justice’while simultaneously offering both an alter-native way of thinking about crime and a‘radical approach to penal reform’ (vanSwaaningen, 1997, p. 117).

It is also important to note that abolition-ism is not a homogeneous theoretical andpolitical movement but varies across cultures.Not only has it been principally a European

phenomenon (Davies, 1998), but withinEurope there have been different strands tothe movement with some pointing to thedistinct differences between European andBritish movements. In Europe early aboli-tionists such as Mathiesen, Christie, Bianchiand Hulsman advocated an alternative visionfor criminal justice politics. Second genera-tion abolitionists, neo-abolitionists, acceptmany of the abolitionist principles, includingthe rejection of both the concept of crime and‘penality as the ultimate metaphor of justice’(van Swaaningen, 1997, pp. 116 and 202).However, British neo-abolitionists such asBox-Grainger, Ryan, Ward, Hudson and Simalso advocated engaging in more interven-tionist work to develop a ‘criminology frombelow’, which

In utilizing a complex set of competing, contra-dictory and oppositional discourses, and provid-ing support on the ground for the confined andtheir families, has challenged the hegemonyaround prison that has united state servants, trad-itional reform groups and many academics onthe same pragmatic and ideological terrain. In anumber of areas … such as deaths in custody,prison conditions, medical power, visiting, cen-sorship and sentencing these groups have con-ceded key points to the abolitionist argumentand have moved onto a more radical terrainwhere they too have contested the constructionof state-defined truth around penal policy. (Sim,1994, pp. 275–6)

Evaluation

In the light of the huge increase in prisonpopulations around the globe and the contin-uing rise in both reported crimes and crimesaudited in victimization and self-report stud-ies, abolitionism offers an important seriesof insights into the role of the prison and itsfailures at the beginning of the twenty-firstcentury. The perspective continues to posethe key question: is prison the answer to theproblem of crime even allowing for anexpanded definition to include crimes com-mitted by the powerful?

There have been a number of issues raisedand criticisms made of the abolitionist position.

ABOLITIONISM

3

01-Muncie-A.qxd 10/18/2005 10:27 AM

Most have come from those who, like aboli-tionists, would see themselves as part of atheoretical and political tradition that was onthe critical wing of politics and social science.Left realists would criticize abolitionists fortheir idealism and for their ‘anarcho commu-nist position’ which is ‘preoccupied withabolishing or minimizing state interventionrather than attempting to make it more effec-tive, responsive and accountable’ (Matthews,cited in Sim, 1994, p. 265).

Abolitionists would reject the charge ofidealism and as noted above would point tothe influence that they have had on a numberof political debates and social policies interms of making the state more accountable.For example, the issue of deaths in custodywhich became a major political debate in theUK in the 1980s and 1990s involved not onlyindividuals who were part of the abolitionistmovement but had a significant hegemonicimpact on liberal reform groups by pullingthem onto a more radical and critical terrainin terms of demanding political action to dealwith the devastating impact of these deathson the family and friends of the deceased(Sim, 1994). Abolitionists would also say thatthe problem with criminology is that it suffersfrom too little utopian and idealistic thoughtrather than too much.

Feminist writers have also drawn attentionto the problem of violent men and what shouldbe done to protect women from the predationsof, for example, men who rape. This raises thebroader question of dangerousness and thenature of the response that is needed to dealwith dangerous individuals. What, for example,do we do with those who engage in serialkilling and who are overwhelmingly men?Abolitionists would agree that violence againstwomen is a major issue across societies whichshould be taken and responded to seriouslybut would maintain that simply confining vio-lent men inside can often only mean detainingthem in institutions where the pervasiveculture of masculinity is likely to reinforcemisogynist views around male power andwomen (Sim, 1994). Therefore they would saythat the nature of the institutions and thebroader culture which objectifies women and

equates heterosexuality with domination andpower needs to be addressed.

They would argue further that dangerous-ness is a social construction in that there area range of behaviours that can have immenseimplications for individual and group safetybut which are rarely, if ever, labelled danger-ous. The non-implementation of health andsafety laws would be an example of this point.Finally, abolitionists would argue that the dis-tinction between normal and abnormal,which lies at the heart of positivist thought,and which dominates debates about violenceand dangerousness, is also problematic. Theywould point to the killings carried out by, andthe non-prosecution of, the ‘normal’ men whomurdered hundreds of innocent men, womenand children in Vietnam in 1968 as an exam-ple of the social construction of dangerous-ness. This crime took place 15 months beforethe infamous Manson murders in the USA.This latter case has become deeply embeddedin popular and political consciousness whilethe former case has largely been forgotten.

At another level, Angela Davies (1998,pp. 102–3) has argued that while the Europeanabolitionist tradition has offered many impor-tant insights into the nature of the prison‘there is no sustained analysis of the part anti-racism might play in the theory and practiceof abolitionism’. This is particularly importantwhen it is recognized that prison populationsaround the world contain a disproportionatenumber of people drawn from ethnic minoritybackgrounds.

For the future, abolitionists have increas-ingly connected with the emerging discoursesand debates around human rights and socialjustice which they see as mechanisms fordeveloping negative reforms, thereby pro-moting a response to social harm that is verydifferent from the destructive prison andpunishment systems that currently exist.

Joe Sim

Associated Concepts: abolition, critical crim-inology, hegemony, left idealism, redress, socialconstructionism, social justice, the state


4

01-Muncie-A.qxd 10/18/2005 10:27 AM

Key Readings

Bianchi, H. and van Swaaningen, R. (eds)(1986) Abolitionism: Towards a Non-Repressive Approach to Crime. Amsterdam,Free University Press.

Davies, A. (1998) ‘Racialized punishmentand prison abolition’, in J. James (ed.), TheAngela Y. Davies Reader. Oxford, Blackwell.

De Haan, W. (1991) ‘Abolitionism and crimecontrol: a contradiction in terms’, inK. Stenson and D. Cowell (eds), The Politicsof Crime Control. London, Sage.

Mathiesen, T. (1990) Prison on Trial. London,Sage.

Sim, J. (1994) ‘The abolitionist approach: aBritish perspective’, in A. Duff, S. Marshall,R.E. Dobash and R.P. Dobash (eds), PenalTheory and Practice: Tradition and Inno-vation in Criminal Justice. Manchester,Manchester University Press.

Van Swaaningen, R. (1997) Critical Criminol-ogy: Visions From Europe. London, Sage.

ACTION RESEARCH

Definition

Action research is a form of research, oftenevaluative in nature, which has the intentionof influencing the future direction of practiceand policy.


The origins of action research are generallytraced to the work of Kurt Lewin (1943), whoenvisaged that social research should seekto address certain goals. In many forms ofenquiry the researcher seeks to distancehimself or herself from the topic beingresearched, and from the parties to socialaction. The action researcher, in contrast,enters into a dialogue with the parties tosocial action, transmitting results at certainpoints during the investigation so that theparties involved can make changes to theways in which they are proceeding, and

sometimes to the aims they are seeking toachieve. The consequences of these changesare then studied in turn, and further feedbackand change may take place in an iterativeprocess. Such a process can also have conse-quences for the research design and methodsoriginally adopted by the researcher(s),which may have to change in order to accom-modate new developments in social action.Action research is therefore a dynamic modelof research, which requires time for reflec-tion and review.

Action research has been used incommunity-based initiatives, such as commu-nity development projects and crime preven-tion programmes, in order to inform the futureprogress of social intervention. An example ofaction research in practice can be found inan evaluation of a domestic violence projectwhere ‘regular feedback was given to theproject in order that this could inform sub-sequent developments’. Here the difficultiesof achieving ‘longer term reflections andchange’ when beset by shorter term ‘opera-tional’ issues were noted (Kelly, 1999).

Evaluation

Action research has also been employedwhere participants and researchers share acommitment to achieving a particular end,such as anti-racist action, feminist approachesto working, and the pursuit of human rights(see, for example, Mies, 1993). Action researchraises questions about the extent to whichthe researcher can remain aloof anddetached from social action; the researchermay be regarded more as an actor with a par-ticular set of skills and experience. Actionresearch can also have the aim of empower-ing participants in social action. This may beachieved by enabling participants to havemore control over their lives and communi-ties, or by increasing the research skills ofparticipants so that they have a greater abil-ity to monitor, evaluate and reflect on theiractivities themselves, or both of the forego-ing. One such development has been theattempt to empower user interests in publicservice evaluations. ‘User’ research has a

ACTION RESEARCH

5

01-Muncie-A.qxd 10/18/2005 10:27 AM

‘commitment to changing the balance ofpower between those who provide and thosewho receive services’, the interests of serviceusers being enhanced through the researchprocess (Barnes, 1993).

lain Crow

Associated Concepts: evaluation research,praxis, reflexivity

Key Readings

Barnes, M. (1993) ‘Introducing new stake-holders: user and researcher interests inevaluative research – a discussion ofmethods used to evaluate the BirminghamCommunity Care Special Action Project’,Policy and Politics, 21 (1), pp. 47–58.

Everitt, A. and Hardiker, P. (1996) Evaluatingfor Good Practice. Basingstoke, Macmillan.

Greenwood, D.J. and Levin, M. (1998) Intro-duction to Action Research: Social Researchfor Social Change. London, Sage.

Kelly, L. (1999) Domestic Violence Matters: AnEvaluation of a Development Project. HomeOffice Research Study No. 193, Research,Development and Statistics Directorate,London, HMSO.

Lewin, K. (1943) ‘Forces behind foodhabits and methods of change’, Bulletinof the National Research Council, 108,pp. 35–65.

Mies, M. (1993) ‘Towards a methodology forfeminist research’, in M. Hammersley (ed.),Social Research: Philosophy, Politics andPractice. London, Sage.

ACTUARIALISM

Definition

Actuarialism refers to the suite of risk calcu-lation techniques that underpin correctionalpolicies.


Actuarialism is most closely associated withthe ‘new penology’ writings of Malcolm M.Feeley and Jonathan Simon. The term the‘new penology’ had been floating aroundAmerican criminal justice circles for severalyears before Feeley and Simon finally pulledthe various components together. Theyargue that in response to the need for moreaccountability and rationality a radical shifttook place in correctional policy in the USAduring the 1980s. The old transformativerationales for the correctional system werereplaced by the actuarial language of proba-bilistic calculations and statistical distribu-tions applicable to populations. Rather thanconcentrating on individuals, the systemshifted to targeting and managing specificcategories and sub-populations. Managementwas to be realized through the applicationof increasingly sophisticated risk assessmenttechnologies and practices. This shift alsoenabled the system to construct its own mea-sures of success and failure and to predictits own needs. In many respects Feeley andSimon viewed actuarialism as both the logi-cal consequence of the original utilitarianpenal reform project and a radical departurein that the system had moved beyond anyinterest in reform or rehabilitation. The cor-rectional system under actuarialism becomesa hyper-rational processing system that ful-fils the mandate that it has been given. Forthem actuarialism logically connected withneo-liberal socio-economic policies that pro-duced surplus populations that had to becontained and controlled. In the UK actuari-alism is most closely associated with thework of the probation service, whose profes-sional task is risk assessment of the likelihoodof re-offending and the threat posed to thecommunity.

Eugene McLaughlin

Associated Concepts: managerialism, predic-tion studies, rational choice theory, risk, situ-ational crime prevention


6

01-Muncie-A.qxd 10/18/2005 10:27 AM

Key Readings

DiLulio, J. (1987) Governing Prisons: A Compar-ative Study of Correctional Management.New York, The Free Press.

Feeley, M. and Simon, J. (1992) ‘The newpenology: notes on the emerging strategyof corrections and its implications’,Criminology, 30 (4), pp. 452–74.

Simon, J. (1988) ‘The ideological effect ofactuarial practices’, Law and Society Review,22, pp. 771–800.

Simon, J. and Feeley, M. (1995) ‘True crime:the new penology and public discourse oncrime’, in T. Blomberg and S. Cohen (eds),Punishment and Social Control. New York,Aldine de Gruyter.

ADMINISTRATIVE CRIMINOLOGY

Definition

A term coined by Jock Young in the 1980s torefer to the reconstitution of establishmentcriminology in the UK and USA in theaftermath of the demise of positivist inspiredcorrectionalist theory and practice and theemergence of radical criminology. Administra-tive criminology concentrates on the nature ofthe criminal event and the setting in which itoccurs and assumes that offenders are rationalactors who attempt to weigh up the potentialcosts and benefits of their actions. The goal ofadministrative criminology is to make crimeless attractive to offenders.


The term ‘administrative criminology’ encom-passes a large number of writers from a vari-ety of academic backgrounds involved in awide range of research sites. They are unitedby: acceptance of dominant definitions ofwhat constitutes the problem of crime; alack of interest in the social causes of crime;acceptance of the need for their research tobe applied to aid policy development anddecision-making; support for rational choice or

‘opportunity’ approaches to specific offendersand specific offences; advocacy of ‘what weknow’ and ‘what works’ criminal justice poli-cies; proposing modesty and realism in mak-ing claims about what can be achieved; andbeing either employed within the criminaljustice system or acting as paid advisers tocriminal justice officials.

For Jock Young, the work of James Q.Wilson (in the USA) and Ronald V. Clarke (inthe UK) has been vital to the emergence ofa fully fledged administrative criminology.Administrative criminology’s starting point isthat despite the massive investment in wel-fare in the 1960s and a sustained period ofprosperity, crime rates escalated to unprece-dented levels in many Western societies.James Q. Wilson took this startling fact asproof that social democratic theorizing on thecauses of and solutions to crime was seriouslyflawed. He argued that it was time to go back tobasics on criminal justice policy. Criminologistsshould concentrate their efforts on producingpolicies that addressed what the public wasafraid of, that is ‘predatory’ street crimes suchas muggings, assaults, robberies, burglaries andso on, carried out by strangers. Crime reduc-tion rather than social engineering shouldbe the focus of criminal justice policies. Theimportance of engaging in focused researchand evaluated pilot studies was to produce rig-orous knowledge and avoid costly mistakes.Scepticism about the role of the criminal jus-tice system in crime control also meant thatpolicy-makers needed to think about how tointegrate practical crime control into otheraspects of public policy.

In the UK, Ronald V. Clarke, a seniorresearcher at the Home Office, reached similarconclusions to Wilson and began to formulatean approach to ‘commonplace crime’ that wasnot hindered by what he viewed as the limita-tions of mainstream criminological theoriz-ing, particularly its failure to develop realisticand practical policy recommendations. FromClarke’s perspective, criminal justice policy-makers cannot do much about the desire ofsome young men to become involved in delin-quency and criminal activity. However, most

ADMINISTRATIVE CRIMINOLOGY

7

01-Muncie-A.qxd 10/18/2005 10:27 AM

offenders are involved in a rational choicestructuring process that consists of evaluatingthe perceived risks in the commission of a par-ticular offence, the rewards that are likely to berealized and the skills and resources requiredto execute a criminal act successfully. As aconsequence, criminal justice policy-makersshould concentrate their efforts on reducingthe physical opportunities for offending andincreasing the chances of offenders beingcaught and punished. The focus on how a crim-inal’s decision-making in a given situation isinfluenced by her/his perception of risk, effortand reward led to the development of a suite ofopportunity reduction techniques to: increasethe effort associated with committing a crime;multiply the risks of crime; reduce the rewardsof crime; and remove the excuses for crime.The techniques and strategies chosen mustbe appropriate to the specifics of the crimecommitted and their setting.

Evaluation

Such situational crime prevention policyinitiatives lend themselves to evaluation foreffectiveness and this enabled administra-tive criminologists to develop evidence-based,problem-solving approaches to crime reduc-tion. Administrative criminology’s other con-cern is to re-organize the state’s crime controlefforts to make them as efficient, effectiveand focused as possible. It has no particularsentimental attachment to the criminal justicesystem and is willing to advocate managerial-ization, actuarialization and privatization.

By the end of the 1990s administrative crim-inologists had become increasingly sophisti-cated in formulating and defending theirperspective, going so far as to present ‘oppor-tunity’ as a ‘root cause’ of crime. To date therehas been no adequate response from eithercritical criminology or left realism.

Eugene McLaughlin

Associated Concepts: actuarialism, crimescience, managerialism, opportunity theory,rational choice theory, routine activity theory,situational crime prevention

Key Readings

Clarke, R.V. (ed.) (1997) Situational CrimePrevention: Successful Case Studies, 2nd edn.New York,Harrow and Heston.

Cornish, D. and Clarke, R.V. (eds) (1996)The Reasoning Criminal: Rational ChoicePerspectives on Offending. New York,Springer-Verlag.

Felson, M. and Clarke, R.V. (1998) OpportunityMakes the Thief: Practical Theory for CrimePrevention. London, Home Office, PoliceResearch Group Paper 98.

Newman, G., Clarke, R.V. and Shoham, S.(eds) (1997) Rational Choice and SituationalCrime Prevention. Aldershot, Ashgate.

Sherman, L., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D.,Eck, J., Reuter, P. and Bushway, S. (1997)Preventing Crime: What Works, WhatDoesn’t, What’s Promising: A Report to TheUnited States Congress, http://www.ncjrs.org/works/index.htm.

Wilson, J.Q. (1983) Thinking about Crime.New York, Basic Books.

AETIOLOGY

See Causation

ANARCHIST CRIMINOLOGY

Definition

Anarchism is one of the most difficult politicalideologies to conceptualize and define, primar-ily because there is no one anarchist ideologyand because of the degree of misrepresenta-tion by its political opponents. It is a meetingplace for a bewildering number of philosophies,belief systems and practices and originatedas a reaction to the emergence of the nationstate and capitalism in the nineteenth century.Anarchists are united, first and foremost, bythe belief that the state is coercive, punitive,exploitative, corrupting and destructive.Alternative forms of mutual aid and voluntary


8

01-Muncie-A.qxd 10/18/2005 10:27 AM

organization that are non-authoritarian, non-coercive, non-hierarchical, functionally specificand decentralized are advocated.


A number of specifically anarchist principleshave been developed from the work of MaxStirner (1806–56), Pierre Joseph Proudhon(1809–65), Mikhail Bakunin (1814–76) PeterKropotkin (1842–1921) and Emma Goldman(1869–1940). In general, these principles do notconceive of a disorderly or chaotic society butrather a more expansive form of social orderwithout the state. This social order will maxi-mize individual freedoms and encourage vol-untary association and self-regulation. A broadspectrum of anarchist thought also wishes toreplace monopoly forms of capitalism and pri-vate property with collectivist forms of owner-ship. According to sympathetic criminologistssuch as Jeff Ferrell, there cannot be fullyfledged anarchist criminology because it wouldbe a contradiction in terms. However, PeterKropotkin’s writings on law and state authoritystill stand as a key reference point for anyemergent anarchist criminology. Kropotkinargues that law is useless and harmful, sus-taining mass criminality and generating socialpathologies. Laws protecting private propertyand the interests of the state are responsiblefor generating between two-thirds and three-quarters of all crime. The body of criminal lawthat is geared towards the punishment and pre-vention of ‘crime’ does not prevent crime anddegrades society because it fosters the worsthuman instincts and obedience to the statusquo and bolsters state domination.

Kropotkin insists that the majority of crimewill disappear the day private property ceasesto exist and human need and cooperationrather than profits and competition become theorganizing principle of social life. Alternativeforms of social solidarity and inclusive notionsof social justice, rather than state-run systemsof criminal justice and the fictional ‘rule oflaw’, can contain anti-social behaviour. Here,there are obvious links to the core principlesunderpinning abolitionism, left idealism andpeacemaking criminologies.

Anarchists deny that their vision relies ondisorder, violence and lawlessness. However,the belief that anarchism originates in every-day struggle rather than abstract theorizingleads to the advocacy of direct or creativeaction and ‘propaganda by deed’. The resultantprotest and resistance tactics and set-piececonfrontations which are vital to the renewalof theory and practice bring anarchist groupsinto confrontation with the forces of law andorder and they thus risk potential criminal-ization. It is in this moment that the stereotyp-ical representation of the nihilistic anarchistis conjured up in the news media.

Evaluation

Anarchist theory provides criminologistswith:

• an uncompromising critique of law, powerand the state;

• the promise of un-coercive socialrelationships;

• the possibility of alternative forms of dis-pute settlement and harm reduction;

• a form of political intervention that maybe appropriate to an increasingly complexand fragmented world where conven-tional forms of politics are increasinglyredundant;

• the basis to develop both libertarian andcommunitarian criminologies.

Jeff Ferrell (1995, p. 106) sums up thepossibilities of anarchist criminology: ‘At itsbest, anarchism and the process of justicethat flows from it constitute a sort of dancethat we make up as we go along, an emergingswirl of ambiguity, uncertainty, and pleasure.Once you dive into the dance, there are noguarantees – only the complex rhythms ofhuman interaction and the steps that you andothers invent in response. So, if you wantcertainty or authority, you might want to sitthis one out. As for the rest of us: start themusic.’

Eugene McLaughlin

ANARCHIST CRIMINOLOGY

9

01-Muncie-A.qxd 10/18/2005 10:27 AM

Associated Concepts: abolitionism, leftidealism, peacemaking criminology, the state

Key Readings

Ferrell, J. (1995) ‘Anarchy against the disci-pline’, Journal of Criminal Justice andPopular Culture, 3 (4), pp. 86–106.

Ferrell, J. (1999) ‘Anarchist criminology andsocial justice’, in B.A. Arrigo (ed.), SocialJustice/Criminal Justice. Belmont, CA,Wadsworth.

Kropotkin, P. (1996) ‘Law and authority’, inJ. Muncie, E. McLaughlin and M. Langan(eds), Criminological Perspectives: A Reader.London, Sage.

Tifft, L.L. (1979) ‘The coming re-definitionsof crime: an anarchist perspective’, SocialProblems, 26, pp. 392–402.

ANIMAL ABUSE

Definition

Animal abuse is any act that contributes to thepain, suffering or unnatural death of an animalor that otherwise threatens its welfare. Animalabuse may be physical, psychological or emo-tional, may involve active maltreatment orpassive neglect or omission, and may be director indirect, intentional or unintentional.


Species-specific indicators indicate the impacton the psychological and physical welfareof animals. Specific health, physiological,ethological and production indicators (whenthe animals are incorporated in productionprocesses, e.g. animal husbandry) can be deter-mined, from which a violation of animals’ wel-fare can be assessed. Reduced life expectancy,impaired growth, impaired reproduction,body damage, disease, immuno-suppression,adrenal activity, behaviour anomalies andself-narcotization are indicators of poor wel-fare. Welfare thus depends not solely on ananimal’s subjective experiences. Although

poor welfare and suffering often occurtogether, suffering is no prerequisite for poorwelfare. When an act or omission entails neg-ative effects on an animal’s welfare – to beassessed using these species-specific indica-tors – it can be classified as animal abuse. Butscientific uncertainty about many aspects ofanimals’ mental state or emotional liferequires the use of a precautionary principle:an act should be regarded as animal abuseif we are unsure if it has a detrimental effecton the welfare of an animal. Following thedescriptions of the ‘battered child syndrome’and the ‘battered woman syndrome’,attempts should also be made to identify theclinical signs and pathology of physical abuseof companion animals, as specified in the‘battered pet syndrome’.

Evaluation

The apparent importance of animal abuse hasrecently been highlighted through its com-plex relationship with child abuse anddomestic violence (Lockwood and Ascione,1998). One line of research has examined thesupposed links between animal abuse andother expressions of family violence, forexample, child abuse and woman abuse. Ithas been found that several forms of violenceoften co-exist with different categories ofvictim. The presence of animal abuse mightindicate that other family members are alsopotential victims; acknowledging this con-nection can help in the prevention of humaninterpersonal violence. Other research hasexamined the correlation between animalabuse committed by children and the devel-opment of aggressive or violent behaviourat later stages in life. Here, it has been foundthat children abusing animals are more likelysubsequently to exhibit aggressive and vio-lent tendencies towards humans. Animalabuse in childhood is thus seen to signify theneed for intervention by a variety of socialand human service agencies.

The importance of detecting and prevent-ing animal abuse has tended to become ajustifiable and legitimate field of research,


10

01-Muncie-A.qxd 10/18/2005 10:27 AM

action and intervention, precisely becauseof its connection with expressions of humaninterpersonal violence. However, this is ananthropocentric or speciesist approach toanimal abuse. Several philosophers haveestablished the moral significance of animalsin their own right. Because animals are sen-tient living beings, with interests and desires,and are ‘subjects-of-a-life’, animals are takeninto the circle of moral consideration (Reganand Singer, 1989). Speciesism thus stands fora prejudice or biased attitude favouring theinterests of the members of one’s ownspecies against those of members of otherspecies. As with other systems of discrimina-tion like racism and sexism, speciesism restson the domination and subordination ofothers, here solely based on the fact thatanimals are not human (Adams and Donovan,1995). A non-speciesist and more sensitivedefinition of animal abuse focuses on theinterests of animals and the consequences ofanimal abuse for their welfare (Beirne, 1995;Cazaux, 1999). It rests not on an exhaustiveenumeration of possibly abusive acts oromissions (e.g., burning, poisoning, assault,neglect, etc.) but on the effects of practiceson animals’ physical and psychologicalwelfare.

Henceforth, this definition of animalabuse invalidates the distinction betweenanimal cruelty and animal abuse. The effectsof abuse on animals’ welfare are independentof offenders’ sadistic, malicious or benignpropensities. Nor should the definition ofanimal abuse include the anthropocentricphraseology ‘unnecessary suffering’ – ofteninscribed in animal welfare laws – since itlends legitimacy to animal suffering deemednecessary for economic, political or scientificreasons. For example, from a non-speciesistviewpoint, bestiality is not an offence ofdecadence or of sexual indecency but,because of its similarity to the sexual assaultof women and children, it should be namedinterspecies sexual assault (Beirne, 1997).

Animal abuse refers not only to individualcases of socially unacceptable practices, suchas the abuse of companion animals, but also

to several institutionalized systems foundedon the exploitation and subordination of ani-mals which are by many viewed as sociallyacceptable. These include the abuse of animalsin agriculture, hunting, fishing, trapping,entertainment and sports and in experimentalresearch.

What is classified as animal abuse is thusindependent of human intention or igno-rance, socially sanctioned or socially rejectednorms, and labels of necessary or unneces-sary suffering. It is also independent ofwhether the animal victim is categorized asa companion animal, a wild animal, as live-stock or as an experimental animal, and coversboth single and repeated or institutionalizedincidents of animal abuse.

Geertrui Cazaux and Piers Beirne

Associated Concepts: family crime, hiddencrime, violence

Key Readings

Adams, C.J. and Donovan, J. (eds) (1995)Animals and Women. London, DukeUniversity Press.

Beirne, P. (1995) ‘The use and abuse ofanimals in criminology: a brief historyand current review’, Social Justice, 22 (1),pp. 5–31.

Beirne, P. (1997) ‘Rethinking bestiality:towards a concept of interspecies sexualassault’, Theoretical Criminology, 1 (3),pp. 317–40.

Cazaux, G. (1999) ‘Beauty and the Beast:animal abuse from a non-speciesist crim-inological perspective’, Crime, Law &Social Change, 31 (2), pp. 105–25.

Lockwood, R. and Ascione, F.R. (eds)(1998) Cruelty to Animals and Interper-sonal Violence. Indiana, Purdue UniversityPress.

Regan, T. and Singer, P. (eds) (1989) AnimalRights and Human Obligations. London,Prentice–Hall.

ANIMAL ABUSE

11

01-Muncie-A.qxd 10/18/2005 10:27 AM

ANOMIE

Definition

A state of ethical normlessness or deregula-tion, pertaining either to an individual or asociety. This lack of normative regulation leavesindividuals without adequate ethical guid-ance as to their conduct and undercuts socialintegration.


Anomie is one of the foundational conceptsof modern criminological thought. Its promi-nence in American theorizing (where it formsthe basis of ‘strain’ theory) is largely due tothe interpretation given to anomie in thework of Robert Merton. His 1938 article‘Social Structure and Anomie’ is one of themost influential articles in the history ofsociology. Whilst Merton’s theory is nowseen as reductionist and somewhat mecha-nistic in the view it offers of human agency,fertile ground is still seen in Durkheim’s orig-inal late nineteenth-century formulation ofanomie. This is largely due to the scope ofDurkheim’s questioning. Along with fellowEuropeans Marx, Nietzsche and Weber,Durkheim was concerned with grapplingwith the new problems of modernity andsought to identify the key features underly-ing social change. With modernity humandesires and passions seemed freer, the paceof change was dramatic: how then was‘social solidarity’ or social cohesion possible?Durkheim did not pose the question so muchin terms of ‘what are the forces driving usapart?’, but rather asked ‘what is it that keepsus together?’ How is society itself possible?What are the roles and ‘functions’ of humansand social institutions? And how are we tolearn about it in order that we may adapt tochange?

Durkheim located the driving force ofmodernity in the twin factors of the divisionof labour and the freeing of desire. Societyis to be conceived as a ‘moral milieu’ whichpositions and constitutes the individual.Individuals experience social reality through

their differential positioning in the socialdivision of labour. Humans are motivated bythe pursuit of pleasure and the satisfaction ofdesire and they attain happiness when theirpossibilities for satisfying desire are not atodds with the social realities of the division oflabour. But what happens when the culturalregulation of desire breaks down and desireis released as a mobile, infinite capacity tran-scending the limitations on satisfaction inher-ent in any division of labour?

In his doctoral thesis, first published in1893, Durkheim argued that the conse-quences of anomie, or the failure of moralregulation, were clear in

the continually recurring conflicts and disordersof every kind, of which the economic worldoffers so sorry a spectacle. For, since nothingrestrains the forces present from reactingtogether, or prescribes limits to them that theyare obliged to respect, they tend to growbeyond all bounds, each clashing with the other,each warding off and weakening the other …Men’s passions are stayed only by a moral pres-ence they respect. If all authority of this kindis lacking, it is the law of the strongest thatrules, and a state of warfare, either latent oracute, is necessarily endemic. (Durkheim, 1984,pp. xxxii–xxxiii)

Durkheim thus explicitly reversed Hobbes’spicture of ‘the war of all against all’ inherentin the state of nature. Whereas for Hobbesthis is the purely natural or pre-social state,which humans overcome by creating a pow-erful sovereign to lay down definitions ofmeaning (laws) and enforce obedience,Durkheim places this state of social war andcrime as a product of society, a result of thebreakdown of moral regulation. Modernityis characterized by increasing individualism,by autonomy of thought and action, but thisautonomy is dependent upon greater inter-dependency in the division of labour andincreased complexity within the collectiveconsciousness: ‘liberty itself is the product ofregulation’. The task for ‘advanced societies’was to achieve a balance between the func-tions of the division of labour, law and culture,‘the conditions that dominate social evolu-tion’. With the old certainties disappearing, the


12

01-Muncie-A.qxd 10/18/2005 10:27 AM

individual finds him/herself without securefooting upon reality; anomie threatens. Intimes of economic crisis, either dramaticincreases in prosperity or disasters, anomiemay become the normal state of being: ‘greedis aroused without knowing where to find itsultimate foothold. Nothing can calm it, sinceits goal is far beyond all it can attain. Realityseems valueless by comparison with thedreams of fevered imaginations; reality istherefore abandoned, but so too is possibilitywhen it in turn becomes reality: A thirst fornovelties, unfamiliar pleasures, nameless sen-sations, all of which lose their savour onceknown’ (Durkheim, 1984, p. 254).

What was the solution to the state ofanomie? While Durkheim personally arguedthat the solution to the normative deregulationcausing anomie could not be the impositionof normative restructuring through violenceand the manipulation of cultural symbols – thesolution that both Fascism and state Stalinismwere later to offer – he bequeathed few theo-retical tools for integrating studies of culture,class and perceptions of social ‘reality’. Theunderstanding of anomie which was to bedeveloped within criminology was constrainedby its centrality to the middle range theorizingof Robert Merton (1938).

Writing shortly after the social democraticcompromise of the ‘new deal’, Merton identi-fied the key cultural message of modernistAmerican culture as the ‘success’ goal, in par-ticular ‘money-success’. A ‘strain to anomie’resulted from a disjuncture between culturalgoals and legitimate means of achievement.Specifically, the new technologies of advertis-ing put forward a cultural goal of economicaffluence and social ascent, but individuals,differentially positioned in the social struc-ture, understood that the institutionally avail-able means may or may not enable personalsuccess. Whilst the majority of Americans may‘conform’, others may ‘innovate’, acceptingthe cultural goal but rejecting the institution-ally available means. Particularly for thoselocated in the lower reaches of the socialstructure’ crime could, therefore, be a reach-ing for the American dream, albeit soughtthrough illegitimate channels. Merton’s theory

was further developed with the ‘differentialopportunity’ theorizing of Cloward and Ohlin(1960) and anomie has proved a fertile, ifsomewhat elusive concept to build upon,recently informing Agnew’s (1992) ‘positive’strain theory.

Evaluation

Merton’s theory struck a deep chord withmany. It seemed to offer a way of constrain-ing crime by improving the legitimate lifechances of those who otherwise may make thechoice to innovate deviantly. However, thepositivist tendencies of American sociologymeant that any concept difficult to operational-ize into survey questions or mathematicallyinscribable data remained elusive rather thanaccepted, and always open to the charge ofweak sociology.

Anomie is thus a highly suggestive con-cept, but difficult to operationalize. What arewe to make of this? Perhaps the intellectualhistory of anomie reflects the impossibilityof achieving a ‘transparent’ sociology, cap-turing the true ‘experience’ of the subject.Durkheimian sociology had a normative ele-ment; it was for modern society to arrive ata state of scientific self-consciousness. Thiswould aid the creation of moral individualismin that mankind would attain an objectiveknowledge of how things stood, of the func-tional interdependency of all upon all. Butthis dream of happiness as attunement to ourshared knowledge of the state of reality hasbeen undercut by the relentless division oflabour, by ‘reality’ in ‘late-modern’ ‘Western’societies being characterized by oscillation,plurality and perspectivism, rather than sta-bility. The technological intensification ofcultural reproduction – via the advent ofgeneralized communication, the mass media,the Internet – gives us a sea of information,rendering ‘our’ experience communicable to atrans-local set of ‘fellow-feelers’ while appear-ing inconsistent and superficial to our ‘others’.Few would see the function of modern ‘art’ asto offer representations of the ‘absolute’ orgateways into the eternal truths of the humancondition; rather it is designed to ‘shock’ or

ANOMIE

13

01-Muncie-A.qxd 10/18/2005 10:27 AM

draw the observer into the experience ofambiguity and ambivalence. Within criminol-ogy, understanding anomie offered the hopethat criminological theorists could demon-strate particular policy recommendations,namely that crime could be averted by recon-ciling the means available to agents throughthe goals offered by culture. If agents could beassured that they could achieve the culturalgoals through legitimate or ‘normal’ means(education, employment etc.), then the strainto deviance would lessen. But in the global-ized capitalism of the late-modern condition,at least within Western societies, multiplegoals and fractured and overlapping identi-ties appear the norm. The very concept ofdeviance loses its grip. Moreover, the range ofcandidates available as cultural goals, not justconsumerism but the enhancement of poweror the creation of personal identity as a lifechoice, render the technological fix of adjust-ing ‘means to ends’ a mirage. The concept ofanomie may take on the role of an existentialprop, never quite fitting within any crimino-logical theory, but always hinting at some-thing of fundamental importance in thehuman condition.

Wayne Morrison

Associated Concepts: differential association,functionalism, relative deprivation, social con-trol theory, strain theory, subculture

Key Readings

Agnew, R. (1992) ‘Foundation for a generalstrain theory of crime and delinquency’,Criminology, 30 (1), pp. 47–87.

Cloward, R. and Ohlin, L. (1960)Delinquency and Opportunity. New York,The Free Press.

Downes, D. and Rock, P. (1998) ‘Anomie’,in Understanding Deviance: A Guide tothe Sociology of Crime and Rule Breaking,3rd edn. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Durkheim, E. (1970) Suicide (trans. S.A.Solovay and J.H. Mueller, ed. G.E.G.Catlin), New York, The Free Press.

Durkheim, E. (1984) The Division of Labourin Society (trans. W.D. Halls). Basingstoke,Macmillan.

Merton, R.K. (1938) ‘Social structure andanomie’, American Sociological Review, 3,pp. 672–82.

ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Definition

The concept of anti-social behaviour (ASB)is usually invoked to refer to such issues asyouths hanging about causing trouble, noise,vandalism, abandoned vehicles, litter, graffitiand drunkenness. But definitions of ASB arehighly contested and, in the eyes of many,legally quite imprecise. The definition of ASBin Britain is left intentionally very wide,involving, according to the Home Office ‘act-ing in a manner that caused or was likely tocause harassment, alarm or distress to one ormore persons not of the same household (asthe defendant)’.


The concept of anti-social behaviour (ASB)has seen a rapid rise to prominence since the1990s, particularly in Britain. ASB is even saidto be the ‘number one concern’ of the Britishpeople and tackling it was given central placein the 2004–08 Home Office Strategic Plan.Some commentators (Tonry, 2004) argue thatNew Labour virtually ‘invented’ the conceptand as a result ASB is seen as inextricablybound up with New Labour’s politics of crimeand disorder and the strategies of governanceemerging therefrom. However, while it istrue that few people were talking about ASBbefore the mid-1990s, the concept also has animportant historical pedigree that we shouldnot overlook.

The recent history of the concept can betraced back to Wilson and Kelling’s (1982)highly influential ‘broken windows’ articlewhere the concept of ‘incivilities’ was origi-nally employed to describe a range of offensive


14

01-Muncie-A.qxd 10/18/2005 10:27 AM

and disorderly behaviours and conflictingrelationships in fractured and deprived com-munities in the USA. Implicit in this analy-sis was often an association between suchdegraded behaviours and an ‘underclass’ wayof life. Wilson and Kelling’s thesis was alsothe stated basis for the NYPD’s high profile‘zero tolerance’ crackdown on ‘quality of life’offences.

These understandings of the problem in‘high crime/sink estate’ areas correspondedclosely to the developing urban managementand community crime prevention agendas inthe UK. The residualization of social housingtypically made problems even more acute.Crime and harassment compounded prob-lems of housing management. Conservativeproposals for ‘probationary’ or introductorytenancies culminated in new enforcementpowers in the 1996 Housing Act (Flint, 2002)whilst a 1995 Labour policy document, AQuiet Life: Tough Action on Criminal Neigh-bours, expanded the notion of ASB, placing itfirmly at the centre of the Party’s approach tocommunity-oriented crime and disorder man-agement. This housing management focushas remained a key aspect of ASB – mediahorror stories about ‘neighbours from hell’are not uncommon.

More often than not, however, ASB is seenas related to the activities of young people.Youth, therefore, represents a second, andincreasingly prominent, strand in the con-temporary discourse of ASB (Squires andStephen, 2005). This was especially wellreflected in Misspent Youth, the 1996 Reportof the Audit Commission, itself promptly fol-lowed by the New Labour White Paper NoMore Excuses, declaring its intention to ‘breakthe links between anti-social behaviour andcrime’. Anti-social behaviour, therefore,understood as a kind of pre-delinquent nui-sance, was central to the ensuing new youthjustice strategy which prioritized early inter-ventions designed to ‘nip crime in the bud’.

Evaluation

Viewing ASB as a form of pre-delinquencyconnects us to a much older conception of

ASB which has now been largely sidelined infavour of the enforcement-based approach ofthe present day. This older perspective, devel-oped in the USA in the late 1940s, focussedupon the identification of behavioural andpersonality disorders in childhood, centredaround a broadly conceived ‘antisocial per-sonality disorder’ used to predict futuredelinquency. This conception of psycho-social pathology requiring welfare and treat-ment interventions no longer commandsmainstream attention today even thoughthere is strong evidence of the prevalenceof behavioural and personality disordersamongst young offender groups. Treatment-based approaches for delinquency fell foulof complaints about ‘net-widening’ althoughprecisely the same complaint could be madeof anti-social behaviour enforcement actionstoday. Rather than severing them, early inter-ventions make connections between ASBand later criminality. Intervening early to ‘nipcrime in the bud’ intensifies the processesof scrutiny and surveillance to which youngpeople are subjected. To use a fishing ana-logy, wider nets with thinner mesh, meanscatching more. Newer proposals envisageallowing a wider range of persons (includingparish councils and community panels) toinitiate (or nominate young people for) ASBO(Anti-Social Behaviour Order) proceedings.So, to develop the analogy, there will also bemore people fishing.

That this was precisely the intention behindthe Government’s ASB strategy in Englandand Wales may be gleaned from commentsin a Home Office report on ASBOs. The early1990s witnessed a rising tide of complaintabout the policing of youth-related crime anddisorder. Official strategies favouring diver-sion were increasingly discredited as misguidedliberal tolerance preventing the police fromresponding forcefully and effectively. Theview developed that an ‘enforcement deficit’had emerged with young people apparentlyable to flout the law with impunity and engagein acts of anti-social behaviour ‘in the fullknowledge that there were few criminalsanctions that could touch them’. This situa-tion often caused great frustration: ‘anti-social

ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

15

01-Muncie-A.qxd 10/18/2005 10:27 AM

behaviour is often used as a synonym forproblems with young people’ (Campbell,2002). In the first 30 months following the1998 Crime and Disorder Act, three-quartersof ASBOs in England and Wales were made onpeople under 21 years of age.

Although it was originally envisaged thateach year up to 5000 ASBOs would be issued,even after five years the overall total hadnot reached 2500. Nevertheless the Govern-ment appeared convinced of the merits of the‘quicker and easier’ approach to ASB enforce-ment. In 2003 it published a White Paper,Respect and Responsibility: Taking a stand againstASB, reiterating its contractual model ofinclusion and social responsibility. This wasfollowed, later in the year, by the Anti-SocialBehaviour Act which established a new,Home Office-led, Together campaign develop-ing a national ASB action plan. The use ofAcceptable Behaviour Contracts and ASBOswas to be promoted while new powers suchas Closure Notices (for premises used indrug-dealing) and Curfews and DispersalOrders (to disperse congregations of youngpeople causing fear and alarm in residentialareas) were also introduced. As in the case ofthe ASBOs, the promise of quicker and easierenforcement undoubtedly has an appeal topolice and complainants alike but misgivingshave been voiced about the increasingly dis-cretionary enforcement that may result. Forexample, the police have always ‘moved on’young people causing a nuisance, DispersalOrders may chiefly represent the formaliza-tion and realignment of the law around exist-ing police practices. The Government, bycontrast, concerned that some Crime andDisorder Reduction Partnerships were nottaking the threat of ASB seriously enough,also announced that it would be looking forimprovements in performance by despatch-ing ‘ASBO ambassadors’ from areas consid-ered to be working well to those judged to beunderperforming.

Yet ASB has another history often over-looked in the ever decreasing circles of con-temporary problem analysis, opinion pollingand impact evaluation that has become socentral a feature of modern governance. At

the end of World War II, Hermann Mannheim(1946) discussed ASB, seeing it as a seriesof harms perpetrated against the communityand contrary to the spirit and purposes ofsocial reconstruction. He specifically referredto ‘profiteering’ and the non-payment of taxes,not simply the breach of criminal laws. Indue course, mainstream criminology ratherdeclined this more radical and expansiveagenda but now seems more willing to pickup the issue. Compared with today’s concep-tion of ASB, however, Mannheim’s perspec-tive raises two key issues. Firstly, at times ofrapid social change (post-war Britain andtoday’s late modernity) it may be necessary toassert the values of community and socialinclusion more forcefully. However, secondly,anti-social behaviour is not solely the preserveof the poorest or the young.

Peter Squires

Associated Concepts: ‘broken windows’,communitarianism, community policing, com-munity safety, deviance, juvenile justice, netwidening, social capital, zero tolerance

Key Readings

Campbell, S. (2002) A Review of Anti-SocialBehaviour Orders. Home Office ResearchStudy 236. London, Home Office.

Flint, J. (2002) ‘Social housing agencies andthe governance of anti-social behaviour’,Housing Studies, 17 (4), pp. 619–37.

Mannheim, H. (1946) Criminal Justice andSocial Reconstruction. London, Routledge &Kegan Paul.

Squires, P. and Stephen, D. (2005) RougherJustice: Young People and Anti-SocialBehaviour. Cullompton, Willan.

Tonry, M. (2004) Punishment and Politics:Evidence and Emulation in the Making ofEnglish Crime Control Policy. Cullompton,Willan.

Wilson, J. and Kelling, F. (1982) ‘Brokenwindows – the police and neighbour-hood safety’, Atlantic Monthly, 249 (3),pp. 29–38.


16

01-Muncie-A.qxd 10/18/2005 10:27 AM

APPRECIATIVE CRIMINOLOGY

Definition

An approach that seeks to understand andappreciate the social world from the point ofview of the individual, or category of individ-ual, with particular reference to crime anddeviance.


The designation ‘appreciative criminology’owes much to use of the term ‘appreciativestudies’ by Matza (1969) to refer to specificstudies of deviant subcultures such as thoseof the hobo, the juvenile gang, the drug-taker.Such studies are characterized by observing,sometimes by participation, the social worldof deviants with a view to producing an appre-ciative account of the deviant’s own storyin his or her own terms. Theoretically, appre-ciative criminology is influenced by theinteractionist perspective which developedin social psychology and sociology in the1930s and which received further impetusin the 1960s and 1970s, for example in con-nection with new deviancy theory. Interac-tionism offers an alternative to positivistways of thinking about crime and criminality.Amongst other things, positivism startedfrom assumptions such as: there are cate-gories of individuals who are criminal andwho have characteristics which clearly dis-tinguish them from non-criminals; the expla-nations for criminality lie in individualpathologies; such pathologies are the causesand determinants of criminality. Instead,interactionism offers a framework whichemphasizes human choice and free willrather than determinism; a view of crime anddeviance as something which is generated ininteractions rather than as a characteristic ofindividual backgrounds; and an assumptionthat social action and the social world areflexible, changing and dynamic rather thanfixed, objective and external. Above all,appreciative studies took from interactionismthe notion that there can be variability ofmeanings in social contexts and in society in

general, rather than consensus. The aim ofappreciative studies was, and is, to describe,understand and appreciate the social mean-ings and interpretations which categories ofindividuals attribute to events, contexts andothers’ actions. Such studies are epitomizedin the title of Howard Parker’s (1974) bookView from the Boys, a study of male juvenilegangs in Liverpool based on the perspectivesof the gang members themselves.

Methodologically, appreciative studieshave been influenced by the ethnographictradition in social research. Ethnography,which liberally means description (‘graphy’)of cultures (‘ethno’), has its roots in socialanthropology and the study of pre-industrialsocieties. Subsequently it has been adaptedto the examination of subcultures in com-plex society. Ethnography has a number ofmethodological commitments which make itespecially appropriate to appreciative studiesof deviant subcultures using an interactionistframework. First, there is a commitment tostudying the social world from the point ofview of the individuals being studied.Secondly, it is assumed that there can be amultiplicity of perspectives rather than justone, and also that each is equally valid forthe people who hold them. Thirdly, socialperspectives (and the social meanings, defini-tions, labels and stereotypes which comprisethem) cannot be separated from social inter-actions. Therefore, particular attention shouldbe paid to the ways in which people interactin specific social contexts. Fourthly, there is abelief that such observation should be natu-ralistic, that is individuals should be studiedbehaving as they would normally and natu-rally do so. It is for this reason that ethnogra-phers often rely on participant observationalthough that is not the only form of datacollection used.

The Chicago School of Sociology of the1920s and 1930s was a source of classic appre-ciative studies. Researchers adapted some ofthe techniques of social anthropologists tostudy the subcultures of crime within theircity (in addition to statistical analysis of crimerates to map zones of the city). They producedbooks with titles such as The Jack Roller

APPRECIATIVE CRIMINOLOGY

17

01-Muncie-A.qxd 10/18/2005 10:27 AM

(Shaw, 1930), The Hobo (Anderson, 1923), andThe Gang (Thrasher, 1927). There was partic-ular emphasis on the transitional zone of thecity with indicators of social disorganizationsuch as high turnover of population, poorhousing and high incidence of crime.

Appreciative studies captured the cultureof crime in this zone and also the mechanismsby which this culture was transmitted. Indoing so, the Chicago sociologists emphasizedthe distinctiveness of the deviant subculturesand their separation from mainstream society.In the 1960s and 1970s there was a resurgenceof ethnographic studies, linked to an interac-tionist framework, but with a particular slanttowards the process of labelling. For example,Howard Becker’s (1963) study of marijuanasmokers was influential in generating agreater concern with the ways deviant andnon-deviant worlds meet and interact ratherthan with their separation. This was part ofthe emergence of labelling theory as a radicalresponse to the predominance of positivistconventional criminology. Becker was notinterested in asking questions about thecauses of smoking marijuana; instead hefocused on the question of how and why mari-juana users come to be defined and labelled asdeviant. This involved looking at interactionsbetween the would-be deviant and the agenciesof social control.

Evaluation

The critiques that can be levelled at appre-ciative criminology are those which, in termsof theory, can be levelled at interactionismand which, in terms of methodology, can bedirected at ethnography. For example, explan-ations of crime and deviance that aregrounded in interactions in small-scale con-texts run the risk of neglecting wider socialstructural dimensions of power, inequalityand oppression (although for some a synthe-sis based on theorizing at different levels isfeasible). Methodologically, ethnographicstudies endure the criticisms that they lackgeneralizability to wider contexts and – beingreliant on the deviants themselves for data –are not scientific or objective. There is also

the possibility that taking an appreciativestance is synonymous with glorifying thecriminal. This does not find sympathy withthose who emphasize the need to face up tothe reality of crime and the consequences ofit for victims.

Such criticisms apart, appreciative studieshave provided a rich vein within criminologyand have described and explained criminaland deviant subcultures which would nototherwise have been made visible by othertheoretical and methodological approaches.

Victor Jupp

Associated Concepts: Chicago School ofSociology, cultural criminology, ethnography,interactionism, labelling, new deviancy theory,participant observation, subculture

Key Readings

Andersen, N. (1923) The Hobo: The Sociologyof the Homeless Man. Chicago, Universityof Chicago Press.

Becker, H. (1963) Outsiders: Studies in theSociology of Deviance. New York, The FreePress.

Matza, D. (1969) Becoming Deviant. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ, Prentice–Hall.

Parker, H. (1974) View from the Boys. NewtonAbbot, David and Charles.

Shaw, C.R. (1930) The Jack Roller. Chicago,University of Chicago Press.

Thrasher, P.M. (1927) The Gang. Chicago,University of Chicago Press.

AUTHORITARIAN POPULISM

Definition

Conceptualized as an essential aspect of howsocial democratic states and their institutionsrespond to crises within advanced capitalistpolitical economies, authoritarian populism


18

01-Muncie-A.qxd 10/18/2005 10:27 AM

explains how increasingly repressive punitivelaws and sanctions gain popular legitimacy.This mobilization of state power aims to man-age consent, organize regulation and securehegemony through an increasingly authoritar-ian political agenda derived from political dis-affection and discontent. It reaffirms reactiveand reactionary discourses established aroundthe ‘collapse’ of democracy, the ‘breakdown’ inlaw and order, the ‘militancy’ of the unions,the ‘decline’ in moral values and so on. Thesediscourses are exploited through political andmedia ‘campaigns’, thus generating ‘moralpanics’ within popular discourse and socialreaction.


Basing his analysis on the proposition that‘state-monopolized physical violence perma-nently underlies the techniques of power andmechanisms of consent’ within Western cap-italist democracies, Poulantzas (1978, p. 81)claimed that during the 1970s a new form ofstate had emerged: ‘authoritarian statism …intensified state control over every sphere ofsocio-economic life combined with radicaldecline of the institutions of political democ-racy and with draconian and multiform cur-tailment of so-called “formal” liberties’ (1978,pp. 203–4). Repressive measures dependedon the actual exercise of state-sanctioned vio-lence and, significantly, on its international-ization through ideological acceptance or, forthose who opposed the rise of authoritarian-ism, through mechanisms of fear.

For Stuart Hall, Poulantzas had made adefining contribution to the critical analysisof the ‘exceptional shifts’ towards authori-tarianism within Western social democracies.Yet he felt that Poulantzas had misread thestrategy of anti-statism prevalent within theradical right – a strategy representing itself asanti-statist to win popular support while dis-guising the reality of honing state centralism.More importantly, Poulantzas had neglectedthe purposeful and orchestrated constructionand manipulation of popular consent. Hereinlay the essence of Hall’s claim for authori-tarian populism: ‘harness[ing] … support [of]

some popular discontents, neutraliz[ing]opposing forces, disaggregat[ing] the oppositionand incorporat[ing] some strategic elementsof popular opinion into its own hegemonicproject’ (Hall, 1985, p. 118).

Hall’s response to, and development of,Poulantzas’s thesis emerged from his workwith colleagues at the Centre for ContemporaryCultural Studies, Birmingham, UK duringthe 1970s. In their exhaustive analysis of the‘crisis’ in the UK political economy, Hall et al.(1978, p. 303) identified ‘deep structuralshifts’ which had resulted in ‘the extension ofthe law and the courts at the level of politicalmanagement of conflict and the class strug-gle’. As the state had become more directlyinterventionist within the economy, estab-lishing the foundation for capitalist recon-struction through the libertarianism of the‘free-market’, it became both necessary and‘legitimate’ for ‘public opinion to be activelyrecruited in an open and explicit fashion infavour of the “strong state” … [characterizedas] the ebb and flow of authoritarian pop-ulism in defence of social discipline’ (1978,pp. 304–5).

For Hall et al. (pp. 317–20) the ‘crisis’ thatwas ‘policed’ through the gradual develop-ment of legitimate coercion comprised fourdistinct elements: a crisis of and for Britishcapitalism; a crisis of the ‘relations of socialforces’ derived in the economic crisis; a crisisof the state in mobilizing popular consent forpotentially unpopular socio-economic strate-gies; a crisis in political legitimacy, in socialauthority, in hegemony; the imposition of‘social authority’ and societal discipline. Theauthors identified the collapse of postwarsocial-democratic consensus and the consoli-dation of New Right ideology as a fundamen-tal shift in the balance of social forces – fromconsent to coercion – inherent within socialdemocracies; a shift they characterized asthe emergence of an exceptional form of thecapitalist state.

Further expanding the thesis, Hall (1979,p. 19) proposed that the ‘language of law andorder is sustained by moralisms … where thegreat syntax of “good” versus “evil”, of civi-lized and uncivilized standards, of the choice


19

01-Muncie-A.qxd 10/18/2005 10:27 AM

between anarchy and order constantlydivides the world up and classifies it into itsappointed stations’. By appealing to ‘inherent’social values and evoking an overarching moralimperative, law and order rhetoric appealedto a collective common sense; ‘welding peopleto that “need for authority” … so significantfor the Right in the construction of consent toits authoritarian programme’. Populism, how-ever, was not simply a ‘rhetorical device’, itoperated on ‘genuine contradictions’ andreflected a ‘rational and material core’ (1979,p. 20).

Hall (1980, p. 3) considered the ‘drive’towards a ‘more disciplinary, authoritariankind of society’ to be ‘no short-term affair’. Itembodied a ‘regression to a stone-age moral-ity’ promoted by politicians, together with, inpopular discourse, ‘a blind spasm of control:the feeling that the only remedy for a societywhich is declared to be “ungovernable” is theimposition of order, through a disciplinaryuse of law by the state’. Thus, the ‘shift “fromabove” [was] pioneered by, harnessed to and,to some extent, legitimated by a populargroundswell below’; a populism exemplifiedby ‘a sequence of “moral panic”’ (Hall, 1985,p. 116).

Evaluation

The most strident critique of authoritarianpopulism came from Jessop et al. (1988).Concentrating on its application to the riseand consolidation of Thatcherism in the UKthey argued it over-emphasized the signifi-cance of ideology and downplayed structuralrelations of political economy. It was too con-cerned with the ‘relative autonomy’ of lan-guage and discourse, neglected the politicaleconomy of the New Right (preferring insteadto focus on its ‘hegemonic project’) and ‘gen-erate[d] an excessive concern with the massmedia and ideological production at theexpense of political and economic organiza-tion …’ (1988, p. 73). They rejected the ideathat Thatcherism had secured hegemonyand achieved a new expression of collective‘common-sense’; the New Right had neither

broad consensus nor political legitimacy forits objectives. Further, Hall was criticized foridealizing the gains of postwar social democ-racy and for failing to address the politicaleconomic determinants of global economicrestructuring.

The ensuing debate was severe. Halldenied that authoritarian populism hadbeen conceived as a comprehensive analysis ofThatcherism. It was ‘preposterous’ to claimthat he had suggested that Thatcherism hadsecured hegemony. Rather, it constituted apolitics, shared by Western capitalist states,hegemonic in ‘conception and project’, whose‘dominance’ had become ‘self-evident’ by themid-1980s (Hall, 1985, p. 119). Returning toGramsci, he concluded it was ‘impossibleto conceptualize or achieve’ hegemony with-out accepting the economy as the ‘decisivenucleus’ around which civil society consoli-dated (1985, p. 120).

As academic hostilities cooled it becameclear that the significance of authoritarianpopulism conceptually lay in its contributionto theorizing the political and ideologicaldimensions of the authoritarian shift and itspopulist appeal for stronger laws, imposedorder and tightening discipline. What remainedunexplored was the foundation of popularauthoritarianism within the wider society,given – as Hall and others recognized – thatpeople are not mere ‘dupes’. Historically, anauthoritarian streak can be detected within thecollective psyche which appears to transcendcultural and regional differences. Further,authoritarian responses to orchestrated moralpanics, not derived in economic crises orwhich occur during periods of relative eco-nomic expansionism, require consideration.

Yet Hall’s analysis – combining Gramsci,Laclau and Poulantzas – demonstrated thatadvanced capitalism is served, serviced, butrarely confronted, by state institutions whosedecision-makers share its ends, if not alwaysits means, in a coincidence of interestsexpressed in a common and dominant ideol-ogy. In functioning, the state – exemplifiedby the rule of law, its derivation andadministration – tutors and guides the broad


20

01-Muncie-A.qxd 10/18/2005 10:27 AM

membership of society. State institutions aresites for the regeneration and reconstructionof ideas as well as policies. This process, sen-sitive to and informing of popular discourses,serves to defend the structural contradic-tions and inequalities of advanced capitalismwhether in recession (crisis) or in growth(reconstruction). In this climate, authoritarianpopulism serves as a poignant reminder that ifconsensus cannot be forged, it will be forced.

Phil Scraton and Kathryn Chadwick

Associated Concepts: criminalization, criticalcriminology, hegemony, moral panic, punitive-ness, the state

Key Readings

Hall, S. (1979) ‘The Great Moving RightShow’, Marxism Today, January, pp. 14–20.

Hall, S. (1980) Drifting into a Law and OrderSociety. London, The Cobden Trust.

Hall, S. (1985) ‘Authoritarian populism: a replyto Jessop et al.’, New Left Review, 151,pp. 115–24.

Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J.and Roberts, B. (1978) Policing the Crisis:Mugging, the State and Law and Order.London, Macmillan.

Jessop, B., Bennett, K., Bromley, S. andLing, T. (1988) Thatcherism. Cambridge,Polity Press.

Poulantzas, N. (1978) State, Power, Socialism.London, Verso.


21

01-Muncie-A.qxd 10/18/2005 10:27 AM

abolition definitionuk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/... · abolition definition in...

Documents