Postmodern Criminology - Madfis 2014
Postmodern Criminology - Madfis 2014
Postmodern Criminology - Madfis 2014
net/publication/303401521
Postmodern Criminology
CITATIONS READS
0 406
1 author:
Eric Madfis
University of Washington Tacoma
19 PUBLICATIONS 121 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Eric Madfis on 21 May 2016.
premise, conflict arises and manifests itself in may not be incompatible with one another, and
distinct ways for the two schools of thought. the various semiotic fictions created by the public
Radical criminology views conflict as occurring and even some criminologists are what truly
primarily between groups vying for material accounts for crime (Henry & Milovanovic, 1991;
dominance; postmodern criminology focuses Milovanovic, 1996).
instead upon struggles over ways of knowing and This theoretical tradition concludes that minor
communicating reality. alterations of existing policies will not result in
Henry and Milovanovic (1991) redefine crime any significant change in crime rates as causa-
to better fit a postmodern conception. Because tion is far more complicated than the orderly
postmodernists understand knowledge claims as constructions previously designed in modern
domination, crime must be broadened to encom- social science scholarship. Constitutive crim-
pass all forms of injury and injustice. Crime, inology rejects the search for singular causal
in this conceptualization, means any harm that forces of crime and views crime as the result of
results from investing human time or energy into numerous elements, such as individuals, culture,
power relations (Barak, Henry, & Milovanovic, community, and social structure all interacting
1997). Harm comes from myriad unequal together and expressed through the discourses
relationships where people are fundamentally by which we describe the world. Because crime
disrespected or prevented from becoming fully phenomena both determine and are determined
social beings (Henry & Milovanovic 1996). They by the narratives used to describe them, the best
further separate crime into two types. The first way to reduce crime is to reduce the human
are crimes of reduction, which signify any loss investment in the ideology of crime production
relative to one’s previous standing (Henry & and prevention and replace our unhealthy dis-
Milovanovic, 1996). These crimes may be losses course with one of peace and inclusion (Henry &
of property such as theft, losses of health or life Milovanovic, 1991).
such as assault or homicide, or losses of dignity The ultimate postmodern goal is to under-
such as rape or hate crime. The second type are stand new ways of knowing. In order to move
crimes of repression, which occur when people beyond modern notions of linear causality, some
are limited in their humanity and full potential postmodern criminologists apply chaos theory,
(Henry & Milovanovic, 1996). When people a system of nonlinear dynamic systems origi-
suffer from an externally-imposed boundary like nally formulated in mathematics and physics,
poverty, sexism, racism, or any other institu- to the social sciences. This new knowledge is
tionalized restriction, this construction similarly designed to challenge scholars with a different
views them as crime victims. methodology and way of conceptualizing order
One stream of postmodern thought to recently and disorder. One notable chaos criminologist,
emerge in criminology is that of constitutive T. R. Young (1991, 1998), concludes that both
criminology. Milovanovic (1996) rejects the lin- order and chaos are integral parts of the human
ear systems and correlation models dominant condition. Linguistic scholarship reveals that
in criminological thought. Borrowing insights language requires both structure and variation in
from chaos theory in the physical sciences, he order to be useful and adaptable. The same ten-
suggests using nonlinear models and maps in sion between rule maintenance and transgression
order to demonstrate “disproportional effects” operates in the social system. Chaos criminol-
and the various periodicities and bifurcations ogy emphasizes that we must comprehend the
which arise even for the same parameter value importance of variability and chaos in addition
(Milovanovic, 1996). Through this new, multi- to uniformity and disorder in order to even
dimensional model, vertical white bands appear peripherally understand causality. Young (1991)
and may be utilized to reveal “order out of disor- asserts that through unconventional methods
der” (Milovanovic, 1996, p. 573). Without delving such as nonlinear dynamics, one can locate deter-
deeply into his complex method, Milovanovic ministic chaos which allows for the development
argues that predictive models and linear causality of irregular solutions. By observing bifurcations
should be rejected in the social sciences as cer- and abandoning unidirectional causal connec-
tainty may not exist, free will and determinism tions, scholars ought to locate “change points”
POSTMODERN CRIMINOLOGY 3
where new patterns of behavior emerge (Young, the word “violence” (like a bar fight or other
1991). Thus, the search ought not to be for high street crime) come to be conceptualized. This is
correlations but for changing correlations, and done via the process of deconstruction, which
this is thought to free scholars to analyze the dual breaks through social construction and reveals
nature of autonomy and determinism (Young, the power dynamics and group interests beneath.
1998). In this way, it is similar to radical criminology,
Young (1998) argues that the solution to crime yet it goes further. Rather than being concerned,
is not to augment law and order in all circum- as the Marxists are, with those who control the
stances. The correct amount of order is crucial, means of economic production, postmodernists
and after a certain point additional control are concerned with those who control the means
only leads to further disorder. Chaos criminology of language production with the power to define
argues that the ultimate goal is the correct amount law and crime (Arrigo & Bernard, 1997). Of
of order, not order over all else; thus concepts of course, both critical criminologies are united by
chaos and disorder should not be wholly pejora- the recognition that those who control linguistic
tive (Young, 1991). Chaos should not be reduced production, more often than not, are the political
to fault or sin, as it holds the potential for radical and economic elite (Arrigo & Bernard, 1997).
social transformation and constitutes creativity, An excellent example of the linguistic side of
variation, and spontaneity in human relation- postmodern criminology is Young (1996). Via
ships. Accordingly, Young (1991) pleads for a her analysis of criminal conversations and outlaw
twenty-first-century postmodern criminology texts, she reveals what various “images of crime”
which avoids the safety of orthodox criminology constitute in the public and private mind. Young
and is not afraid to explore the ways that chaos argues that when we read or hear about criminals
can be beneficial to academia and the larger or deviants being marginalized or exiled from a
society. community, we both empathetically see ourselves
Since the inception of postmodernism, semi- in the role of the outlaw and simultaneously
otics and discourse analysis have been utilized. fully partake in the separation of the outlaw’s
However, these developments, which highlight behavior from our own. Through her own outlaw
the significance of language, symbols, and signs, texts, Young seeks to reconcile this contradiction,
have only recently been applied to criminological which she views as a false dichotomy, to gain
concerns. Because postmodern criminologists insight into the border between discourse and
assert the primacy of language, they often utilize reality.
specific jargon, engage in wordplay, and invent Throughout its history, postmodernism has
neologisms. Through postmodern deconstruc- often been met with harsh criticism. One of the
tion, they analyze texts to break through layers most trenchant, Russell (1997), leveled numerous
of hegemonic domination. Because “opposi- claims against the validity and utility of post-
tional” language is not incorporated into the modern criminology. Russell asserts that the
dominant forms of communication, alternative postmodern movement, as a whole, is conser-
ways of knowing are entirely dismissed (Arrigo & vative and gutless in its lack of commitment to
Bernard, 1997, p. 44). Though objective reality extensive structural social change. Further, he
is a false goal, one may at least break through found the suggestion that discourse is the direst
the domination of others to access his/her own threat to the powerless to be a naive and idealistic
subjectivity. claim. According to Russell, postmodernism is
Because scientific knowledge is questioned, dangerous in its relativism and denial of Enlight-
conventional criminological concepts are enment ideals of truth and justice. He finds its
believed to be fraught with contradictions. For discussion of the ills of dominant elite discourse
example, the term “violence” is a representation expressed with dense and ostentatious verbosity
entirely dependent upon cultural and historical to be hypocritical. Further, Russell (1997, p. 72)
contexts, without which it is meaningless and asserts that postmodernism decries meta-theory
wildly variable. For postmodernists, the chal- and meta-narratives, yet it itself is another
lenge is to understand why violence symbolizes meta-narrative “seeking to present a ‘totalized’
what it does and how the things associated with understanding of the world.” He concludes
4 POSTMODERN CRIMINOLOGY
that postmodern thought superficially stresses (Eds.)., The languages of criticism and sciences of
altering private lifestyle and symbols rather than man (pp. 247–272). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
deep-seated socio-political structures. University Press.
Whatever validity these criticisms hold, by and Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline & punish: The birth of the
prison. New York: Vintage Books.
large they represent concerns with postmodern
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected inter-
theory as a whole rather than with the specific
views & other writings, 1972–1977. New York: Pan-
criminological branch of postmodernism. While theon Books.
several innovative thinkers have worked fervently Henry, S., & Milovanovic, D. (1991). Constitutive crim-
to formulate a new postmodern criminological inology: The maturation of critical theory. Criminol-
paradigm, their impact on orthodox criminology ogy, 29(2), 293–316.
remains, at present, fairly marginal. However, Henry, S., & Milovanovic, D. (1996). Constitutive crim-
postmodern criminology has already made great inology: Beyond postmodernism. London: Sage.
strides to rethink crime definitions, challenge Lanier, M. M., & Henry, S. (2004). Essential criminology,
criminological claims of objective knowledge, 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
reject linear causality and prediction, assert the Longstreet, W. S. (2003). Early postmodernism in social
education: Revisiting “Decision making: The heart of
potentially positive aspects of disorder, and apply
social studies instruction!” Social Studies, 94, 11–15.
the analysis of symbols and language to the Milovanovic, D. (1996). Postmodern criminology:
scholarship on crime and punishment. Mapping the terrain. Justice Quarterly, 13(4),
567–610.
SEE ALSO: Constitutive Criminology; Critical Russell, S. (1997). The failure of postmodern criminol-
Criminology; Foucault, Michel. ogy. Critical Criminology, 8(2), 61–90.
Schwartz, M., & Friedrichs, D. (1994). Postmodern
thought and criminological discontent: Metaphors
References for understanding violence. Criminology, 32(2),
221–246.
Young, A. (1996). Imagining crime: Textual outlaws and
Arrigo, B. A., & Bernard, T. J. (1997). Postmodern crim- criminal conversations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
inology in relation to radical and conflict criminol- Young, T. R. (1991). Chaos and crime: Explorations
ogy. Critical Criminology, 8(2), 39–60. in postmodern criminology. Red Feather Insti-
Barak, G., Henry, S., & Milovanovic, D. (1997). Con- tute for Advanced Studies of Sociology. Retrieved
stitutive criminology: An overview of an emerg- September 11, 2013, from http://www.critcrim.org/
ing postmodernist school. In B. MacLean & D. redfeather/chaos/015crime.html
Milovanovic (Eds.)., Thinking critically about crime Young, T. R. (1998). Chaos and crime: Chaos the-
(pp. 93–99). Vancouver: Collective Press. ory and postmodern theories of crime. Red Feather
Best, S., & Kellner, D. (1991). Postmodern theory: Criti- Institute for Advanced Studies of Sociology. Retrieved
cal interrogations. New York: Guilford Press. September 11, 2013, from http://www.critcrim.org/
Derrida, J. (1970). Structure, sign, and play in the dis- redfeather/chaos-crm/001intro.html
course of human sciences. In R. Macksey & E. Donato