8.2 Critical Criminology
Critical criminology is difficult to define. Broadly, it is an approach to criminology that diverges from the traditional approaches. For example, the positivist perspective dominates the field of criminology and emphasizes the identification and study of crime causes so they can be corrected and crime can be controlled. Theories that take a critical approach are more firmly focused on, and critical of, our social structures and the way society defines crime, power, and punishment. In other words, critical criminology is all about re-thinking established or traditional ideas, especially in the context of power dynamics.
First, we will discuss the work of sociologists and criminologists who laid the foundation for critical criminology. Then, we will look at key theories and topics within the critical criminological framework.
The Origins of Critical Criminology
Karl Marx’s writings were concerned with the rise of social institutions during industrialization, including the development of criminal law, the power of police and prisons, and the processes of criminalization (figure 8.2). Marx suggests that societies are full of conflict, which is often reflected in, and stems from, the relations of production. The relations of production are the social relationships involved in producing the things we need to survive, such as food and shelter. Marx saw capitalism as the cause of disparities in wealth between employers and employees. He predicted that such an economic system would lead to worker revolt and the eventual collapse of capitalism.
Although Marx was not a criminologist, his work inspired many who were. For example, William Chambliss drew on Marx’s ideas to analyze the origin of vagrancy laws, some of which were enacted as early as 1349. He concluded that these laws were created to force people to work in factories and other places by criminalizing those who did not work. Chambliss defined crime as “conduct that is defined and controlled by agents of the dominant economic class in a politically organized society, to benefit capitalism” (Chambliss, 1964, p. 71). Another Marxist, Louis Althusser (1969, 1971), referred to agencies such as the military, police, judiciary, and prison system as “repressive state apparatuses” as they had the legal right to use force in controlling people.
Another key figure in critical criminology is Michel Foucault. For Marx, power is always connected to economic power and how it manifests at the level of the state. For Foucault, power operates like a network of relations that we are all a part of. In addition to economic power, it includes power in the form of language and action. He argued that thinking about power this way encourages us to understand that power is similar to a building block in how things are made, composed, or constituted. Foucault’s perspective remains incredibly important for critical criminologists because it allows for a more open analysis of power and domination tha