2

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF 'CRIME

Paul Rock

I~TRODUCTION

The O:qord English Didiofl4rJI defines oclology as 'the study of social organization and institutions and of collective behaviour and interaction, inductillg the irrdividual's relationship to the group'. That is a CathOlic definition which e.nc.ompasses almost every situatlon ill. whldJ. individuals or groups can influence one another. Sociological theories of crime are themselves correspondingly carhnlic they extend, fbr example, from an examination of the smallest detail of streeterrcounters between adolescents and the police to compurstive analyses of very large movement in nations' aggregate rates of crime over centuries) and it is sometimes difficult to determine where their' boundaries should be drawn.

There is no one. royal wa)r to Jay out the sociQk)'gy:oh::rime: some have classified hs component theories by their supposed political leanings (liberal. conservative, and radical, for instanc~)i SO'me by their attentiveness orinattentiveness to gender, some by their alleged foundsricna] assumptions about the character of the sccial world (dassical, positivist, 'social constructionist', and the [ike); some by their chronology; some by the great men and women who propounded them; and others hy schools of thougln,

In an empirically-drivt!Jl sub-discipline where the frontiers between theories and parent disciplines are frequently frail and deceptive, where fermaUy difFerent theories oftencoruend with the same problems in ve.ry much 'Ihe same way, as useful a procedureas any is toidentiIy and describe a number of broad families of theories that share some big idea or ideas in common, The organization of thischapter willtherefore follow intellectual themes more dosely than chronologies Dr hierarchies of thought in an at.tempt to mDve}' some small part, of the pre.sent preoccupations and envlmnment of so do logical criminology.

T shan take it that those themes, in their turn, seem quite commonly to take the fo.rm of different ornbinations of ideas about the key issues of control, signification, and order. Crime, after aLI. is centrally bound up with the tate's attempts I'D impnse its will throegh law; with 'the meanings o·f those attempts [0' law-breeker, law-enforcer, observer, and victim; and with concernirant patterns of order and disorder. Crirninologists differabout the weights. 3.11d meanings that hould be attached to

52

PAUL ROCK

those attrlbut s: some, and ontrol theorists in particular, would \\'1, h to be wht t Matza once called <correctional] st', that is, to II e knowledge about crime to suppre it, Others would look upon the exercise of control more criti ally. But they all feed off one all ther's idea even if their practices and politi diverge. The attribute are visible features ofthe discipline', landscape, and I shall employ them to steer a more or less straight route through Dnrkheimian and ertonlan theories of ~mo,mie;

onuel theories; rational choice theory; routine activities theory; the work of the

• hicago School'; studies . f the relations between antral and space, including

ewman's 'defensible pace', and mare recent ideas of risk and the marshalling of dangerous population, radi al criminology and left reali m; fun tionali t criminolog ; and 'labelling theory' and ultural and nbculnrral analy es of crime a meaningful behaviour, r ha 0 ta ke it .t hat su 1 a gran d tour . h ould take in most of the major landmarks which criminologists would now con ider central to their field.

What this chaptercanuot do, of c UI. e, is provide mu h context, h.jstory, niti ism and de-taft That would be Impossible in a short piece. ~ can hope al best to. select lmly a few illustrative ideal! that are of current or recent inter 'L" as well ali cli. cussing orne of the older argument thtlt inform d them.

Further,like any s heme of clas ill arion, this chapter will inevitably face problem: of anomaly and overlap, nor only internally bur also with other chapter in the Handbook. If the uid of crime canm t be . ered from the an iy is contr l, the stat. or gender, there will alway be such problems at the margins. But the chapter ·bould furni h the larger coni' urs of an introductory map of ontemporary .ociological theorie of crime.

CRIME AND CONTROL

ANOMfE AND THE CO, TRADrCTION OF S CIAL ORDER

I . hall begin by de cribing anomie 'theory. one or the. 010 t enduring and, for a while, bard-researched of all the idea of criminological the ry, and n that still per i 't5 in disguised form.

AI hear!, Illitliy theories ,ta.J...-e it that crime i a consequence or defective ecial regulation .. People are said to deviate bemuse the di ciplines and authority of society are .0 Hawed that tbey offer few restrain or moral direction. The idea is a very old one, antedating the emergence ofociolQgy it eLf, but it. formal birth into theory i linked indissolubly with anomie and the. rench so iologist, Emile Durkheim,

Durkheim awarded ~ .. o rather different meaning to anomie; or normle sness. In TIle Division of Labourin ociety, published in 1893 and in uicide; publi hed in 1897. he as. rted that -ren h society wa in uneasy tran ltio n IT m one ra te of solida ri ty or integration to another. J\ society without an elaborate division of labour rested on what he called (perhap rni 1 adingly) the mechanical olidnity of people who not only reacted much alike t.o problems, 'but who also 5.1\",' that everyone about them reacted alike to those problem , thereby leading objectivity, scale, and olidity to

SOCIOLOGICAL l'HEH:l]UES 'OF ORTME

53

moral response, and bringing a potential for massive disapprcvaland repre iOJl to beac 0.11 the devia'ot Such a sooa:l Qra!!.r W!lS eocceived so lie, ill,M,e simpler pas! of pilreindustrial society, The future of industrial society would! be distinguished by a-state of organic solidarity; the solidat:it)" appropriate tOI a complex dhdSlon oflabo'Ur. People would then be allocated by merit and-effort to very, diver e positi ns, ami they would not only recognize the legitimacy of the manner in which rewards ",,'er;e d:istrlbuted, bur also acknowledge th,c indispensabiliw of whlH each did in hi or her work. fer the. other and for the common good. Organic: olidarity would thus have coutrols peculiar bo .i,1'self.'She-erly economic regulation is nOot enough ... there should be moral regula'lion, moral rules which s-pecify the rights and obligations f individuals in a given nccupatioa in J:eiatio.n tt) those in other occupations' ( iddens I972: 11). People JOighl no lenger think wbolly in unison, their moral response ,might not be substantial and unanimous, but they should be able to compose their differenc.es peaceably by mean of a s:y tern of reetitutieejustiee that madeamends fbI': losses suffered,

Durkheim's distinction between the two forms of 'oltdar;ty and their accompanying mode. of control was anthropologically SI,) peel, bur it·W<IS in hls analysis of the lirnlnal state between them that criminoJog:is'rs were most interested. ln thai transiHom, ~. here capitalism was thought to, impose -a 'forced di v isien of labour', people acquiesced neither in the apportionment of rewards 1101' in the moral authority of the .eCdl1()In1Y in state. They were obliged to work and act in a society that not' only enjoyed little I.egihmacy but alsc exercised all incomplete control over their desires, In such a settin,g. iI was heId, 'mall's nature [was to bel demall}.dissatisfied.conrand).to advance, without relief or rest, towards an indefinite goal' (Durkh im 1952: 256_l. Moral regulation waa rdatively deficient and people were correspondingly free to deviate. That h the first meaning Durkheirn gave to cmomie.1-Lis second will be visited belQw.

Given another. di~tj_nc:tively American. complexion by Robert Merton, emomie became a socially-fostered Slatt' of discontent and deregulation that genel'ated crime and devianc-e as part of the routine fUJ1ctioning of a society which promised much to e\'ETYOIle but actually denied them equal access to its attainment (Merton 19:38), People might have been motivated to achieve in the United '. tates, but they c-onfro.llted cla s, rate, and other social ditferences that manifestly contradicred the myth of openness. It was not easy fora pflorl inner-city adolescent to receive spon orshlp for jobs, achieve academic success, or acquire capital, lila society -wihel:t! failure was imel)preted as a sign of personal rather than social weakness, where milure tended to lead to guilt rather than to political anger, the pressure tOI succeed could be SO powerful that it impelled people thus disadvantaged to bypass legitimate careersand take to illegitimate careers instead: 'the culture makes incompatible demands, .. In this setting, a cardinal Allledc<"\_JJ virme-> "am. bitlon " =-promores a cardinal American vice'- "deviant behavior" (Merto'n 195.7: 145).

I\!lcrton's aI.!ami1? theory was to. be modified progressively for some thirty years. In the work. of Richard Cloward and lloyd Ohlin. for example, his model was elaborated to include' rile.g-itimrzte mutes to success. Their Delinquency aud Opportunity (1960) described the consequences of young American men (in the 19505 and 1960& the ertmiaolegica! gaze was-almost whol'l)' on the doings of young American men) Bot

54

PAUL RQnK

onl}r being pushed into crime by the difficulties of acquiring, 1'Il0ney and position in corwentional ways~ but also being pulled by the lure of lucrative and tmeorrventional crimina! C11.1:eeI'S. There would bethoee who were oifeued an w.~()rthodox pa:th tU profes ionalo:r organized crime, and they col1ld become thieves, robbers, 'or racketeers .. The-re would be those for whom no path was available, and they could become members ofconflkt garng"S .. And there were those ~",ho failed to, ,ttwiBadmissiot:l to either a law-abiding 'Or a law-violating group, the 'double fr:rUures\ who would, it was conjectured, give up and become drug-users and hustlers, Each of those modes of adaptatien was in effect, a liVa}f of life, supported by a. system of meanings or a subculture, and CI0WaJ;d ar.Hi Qhlil) provided Olle of the bridges between the truetural and the i.nte:rpretiv:e models of crime which will be discussed at the end of thi chapter.

In the work of Albert Cohen, 4'I'I(i)mie was to be synlhes.izl!:d with the Freudian idea of 'reaction formation' man effort to ex-plain the manifestly expressive and 'nonratioaal' nature ofmuch delinqu.e.l1I:Y. The prospect of failure was depicted as bringll'l.g aDmI1 a. major psymologica.l rejection of what had formerly been sought, so that the once-aspiring working-class adoles ent emphatically turned his back on the middle ... class world that spurned him and adopted a .style of behaviOIlr tha'twas its systematic inversion, The practical and utilitarian in middle-class life was ttansfOXillOO into non-utilitarian delinqaerrcy, respectability became malicious oe:gati.vi5m; and the deferment ef.gratification became shOrt-fUll hedenism, Again, in the work of David l':;)OWIl.esj conducted in London in the. early 1'960$ to e..'lplore how far beyond America: altomie theory might be gel1eraJlz:~d, the ambitions of English adoiescents were fotlnd to be so modulated br ,Vh3;t was then a st'ahl.e· and legitimated S}'ste'1I1 of social stratifiqatiouthat WO"l:king-cJass youth did not seem to undergo iil taxil:!g guilt or frustration in their f.ailure 1:0 accomptish mJddle-dass goals. They neither hankered' after the middle-class world nor repudiated it. Ratjher, their response wa 'clliro-ciation', Where tbey did eJ perieece a strong dissatisfaction, however, was in their thwarted attempts to enjoy leisure, and theirdelinquencies were principally hedonistic. focused 011 dril'1king, fighting, and malicious damage to property. ratf.ler I!ha.a ·illStnrmentraJlytm··ned tomrds theaccuurulatioa of wealth. And that theme-of the part played &y the adolescent 'manufacture of excitement' and the courting of :riskwas to be echoed repeatedly inthe empirical and theoretical work of criminologists. Making 'scrnething happen' in .;1 world without ign16c3nt cultural 0 r material resources could easily bring about a drift into delinquency (~eeM!ltza !.961li Corrigan :t9Z9; and Cusson 19B3).

ANOJ.<fIE AN~D OCIAL DT SORGANIZA'f[ON

'The. second reading of anomie stemming from Durkheim touched on moral regulaLion tllat was not so much flawed as in a critical or chrcnic state of Bear collapse. People, he argued, are not endowed at hilith .with fixed appetites and ambitions, On the contrary, their pur]iloses and aspirations are shaped by the generalized opinions and. reactions of others, by aeollecnse conscience, that can eppear th1rough social, ritual and routine to be ex.temally derived, solid, and objective. When society is

so rOLOGICAL THEORIES OF CRr !

55

disturbed by rapid change or major di order, however; that emblance of olidity and objectivity can it elf - under, and pe ple may no longer find their ambitions subje to effe tive social discipline.jt i hard to live outside the reassuring structures of social life, and the condition of anomie was experienced as a 'malady of infinire aspiration' that was ac ornpanled by 'weariness', 'disillu ionment', 'disturbance, agitation and di content'. In extreme cases, Lukes oh erved, 'this condlticu would lead aman to commit suicide and homicide' (1967. 139).

Durkheim conceived such anemic deregulation to be a matter of risis, innately un table and herr-lived, Disorganization could n the t lerated for very long before a

ciery collap ed or order of a sort would be re tared. Indeed •. od logists 3regenerally ill-di p ed towards the term, believing that it connotes a want of under tanding and perception on the part of the b erver (see Anderson L976' Katz 1997; and Whyte 1942 . They auld hold that, even in ierra Leone. Bosnia, or Rwanda 31 their most deva tared, people were able to u tain a mea ure of organization within disorganiza'lion. Yet, on both the small and the large scale, there are clear examples of people living ill conditions where informal 'control and cooperativeness are only ve tigial; where formal control is either ab eni or erratic; where others are, or are Seen to be, predat ry and dangerous; where life is unpredictable; and where, a, cause and CODsequence. there i little personal afetv, much anxiety, and abundant rime. Take William Julius Wilson' des ription of Ufe in the poorest areas of the Ameri an city; <broken families) antisocial behavior, so ialnetworks that do not extend beyond th ghetto environment, and a lack of inf rrnal ocial control over the beha ior and activities f children 311d adults in the neighborhood' (1996: xvi). On orne housing estates in Pari, London (see Genu 1988). Nottingham (Davies 1998), and t Loui (Rainwater 1970), social groupings have been portrayed as So lacking in cohesion that they enjoyed no shared trust, neighbour preyed on neighbour, and joint defensive action was virtually impossible.

R, rnpant anomie has been well documented (Erikson 1994). onsider Davi 's 11a1fprophetl description of MacArlhur Park, one of the po re L areas ofLo Angeles, as 'feral' and dangerous, 'a free-fire zone where crack dealers and street gangs ettle their cor with shotgun and Uzis' 0992a: 6). Consider, too, Turnbull' description o the ondirion of the lk of n rthern Uganda. a tribe. that had been moved to a mountninous area after their traditional hunting grounds had been designated a national park They could no longer livevcooperate, and work a they bad done before; familiar patterns of ocial organization had become obsolete; and rhe Ik were portrayed as having become beset by 'acrimony, envy 311d uspicion' [1973: 239), 'excessive individualism, oupled with olitude and boredom' (ibid.: 238), and the victimization of the weal; <without killing. it is diffi nlt to get 1 .er to di posal than by taking the rood out of an old person' mouth, and this wa. primarily an adjacent-generation occupation, as were tripping and pu hing off balance' (ibid.: 252).

A number of criminologist and others are beginning to prophesy Dew apocalypi e io which tllJo.wiewil1 flourish on ueh a mall ive scale that entire cietie will dissolve into chaos and lawlessness. There are parts of the world whose pclincal structures are BC) radically di ordered that it becomes difficult to talk about legitimate governments

56

ope.raLmgeffectiv,cly within secure national boundaries at all (see Sayar!" Ellis, and Hibou 1999). So it was that Kaplan wrote graphically about the road-warrior culture (!)f SomaJ:ia, the anarshic i.mpJosion of ·riminaJ violence in !:he lvory Coast, and Sierra Leone, which be depicted 3, a lawless state that had lost control over its citie at night, wlIos~ ma:tionJlI army Wfll:i a • rabble', and which WR;t; reverting to tribalism. ne1fvlture for many, he luridly predicted, woul.d be a 'rundown crowded ·planel bE skinhead Cossacks and juju warrio rs, influenced by the worst refuse of We tern pop culture and aocient tribal hatreds, and bsttllngoserscraps of overused! earth inguerilla ennflicrs .. .' (1994: 62-3). So, too, Martin van Creveld analysed what he called the ubiquitnus growth o{"LQw-intensity ~ntlrct' waged by guerillas and terrorists who threatened the state's ccnventional monopoly of violence: 'Should present trends cominue, then the kin.d of war that is based on the division behv:cen gcvemrnerrt, anny. and people. seemS 'to be on its Way :OuL ... A degree <:if vi<ltlenl activity that even as late as the 19 lOS would have been considered outrageous is now accepted as an inevitable hazard 01' m dern l.ife ' . " (1991: 1.92, 194)_ rf rKap.lan and ralil Creveld are even partially gifted with for.esjg.ht (and much of their argumemt is quite stark), the trends they foretell will be of llll.ajor consequence to crimj,[I,ology., Without a viable state legisla'ture,laws. and law enforcement, wnt b out adequate state cnntrol over the dfnributi011 of viqlence, bow can one 1,l1Tite intelligently about a discrete realm of crimeat all? CdJ.lI1,e, a;fter all. iii contingent 01:1 a state' abilhy clearly to define, ratify, andexecute the law, When the police nfa state <Ire massively and rnutinely corrupt r as they appear to be in M~(;ol; when, for example, the Colombian president' aeroplane wasfound to be can-yillg largequantlties of cocaine in September 1996 (see the New York Times, 22 September 1996); when the President of Liberia has been accused of cannibalism ( The Tilmes" 2 November .1999); it isant difficLI!lt to acknowl€d~ the disarray to which Stan Cohen pojnfed when he asked whether it was possible any IOl1ger to distinguish ·Iir.miy bBt\\1et!\J crime I3Jld politics. There has been, Cohen asserted, a widespread decline of the fr.l:yth that the sovereign sta.~e Can provide security, raw; and order; a decline in. the legitimacy of the state through corruption scandals; iii growth of international crime and a. .riseof criminal states such as' ~hedmya; and, in AJirka particularly, the emergence ofharharism, horror, and atrocity In some 'settings, he remarked, 'h;)wlessIJe.ss am! crime have ~C! desb'oyed the social fabric that the state it elf has wi thdrawn' (1996.: 9),

CONTROL THEORY

A second, large- duster €IF theories centres Loosely around the 'contention that people seek to commit crime because i:t is profitable, useful, or elljoyable fol' them to do S0. and that they will almost certainly break the law If they Can. Even if that contention, with i'ts covert image:ryof feral mall (and woman), i not strkt1y "correct', control rheorists would argue that it certainly poihts enquiry in a helpful direction. They-are interested less in the fidelity cfdescription than il:l its yieldfOJ' polic)' intervention and prediction in concrete situations. Theirs fS· a theory ofpraetical rather than of observtitiomrI truths, and tlre practical is thought to suggestthat more will be [earned by exploring ,I few, uncomplicated factersthat seem to pn'1lt!rlI people IT((IiTI o'trend.ing

SOCIOLOG[CI!.,-L THE01UE, OF CIUr-.IE

than by investigating all the complicated motives, meanings, and antecedents of their actions. travis Hirschi put the issue baldly: 'The question "Why do they do it?" is .simp.I')' notthe question 'the 'theory is designed to answer, The question is" "Why don't we db it?'" (1969: 34). Such a doctrine is a recognizably close nei,ghbour of anomie theories in its focus ~ln the regt1.1a~k)'n of potentially unbridled appetites: and, indeed, it is eceasienally very diffi,cull to distinguish one set off ideas from the either.

Earlier variants 0f control theory, compiled in the 19605 and 197Qs, proceeded by drafting Ii 1:1;; of the constralnts which eould check the would-be offender, all offender who, it was assumed for analytic purpo es, could be much like you, me. or anyone. Thus, arguing ag!linst subcultural theory. and grounded in a Freudian conception ef human impulses that requited taming, Hirschi claimed that 'delinquent act result when the individual's hand to sodety is weakp.f brQ:ken' (l9:69! ('6). FQw- chief elemenr were heldto induce people to C01,T:Iply with rules: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. Attachment reflected a person's sensitivity to the opinions of others; commitment flowed from an investmen; of time, energy, and reputation in cOnfOlfll]ity; involvement temmed from engrossment in conventional activity; and belief mirrored a perscn's 'COnviction that he or she should obey legal rules. There is t3t1tolo£,W and repeti'lion :iIJ. that formnlation, but Hirschi nevertheless usefully directed the crlminclog; 11] mind towards answering hls one big question, 'wh~r dot: 't we do it?'.

later, with Gortfredson, Hirschi developed control theory by turning to sill-control and impulsivitj, Crime, they claim, flows from low self-courreb it provides a direct and simple' gra.lifir::ation of de ires lhat is anracrive to these 'who cannot Qr will not postpone pleasure. In the main, it requires li~tle skill or planning .. It can be Intrinsicall)lenj0yable because it involves tlU' exercise of cunning, agility,. deception, or power. It requires a lack of sympathy for the victim, But it cloes not provide rrredinm- or long-rerm benefitsequivalent to those that JTIay flow from morecrthodcx careers, In short, it is, they say. I.ike1y to be committed b~' those who are 'imiPul,~ive, insensitive. physical ... Risk-taking) short- Ighred, and [loll-verbal ... ~ (1990; 90).

David Matza would not have called himselfa control theorist, but in Defi7lqur!11CY fwd Drift he did effectively straddle theories of control, anomie and signification, and he dld portray delinquents and delinquencyin a manner that control theorists would find complementary. Jt was indeed be who later wrote all eloquent case for what he called an appreciative crirninology (Matz,) 1959). Delinquents are not very different from lJS, he argued, Most of the time they areconventionalenougb in belief and conduct, and it is djfficlil]l '1:0 predict 'who will conform and who wiU 110t. But there are occasions when the grip of ontrol Ioosens, adolescents fat.a[L~tical.ly experience themselves as if Lhey were object andeffect rather than as subject and cause, as if they were no longer mordy responsible for their actions, and they will then find themselves released to drift in and out ofdelinqucncy. What eases that process of disengagement are widely-circulating accounts or 'techniques of neerralizatien' (an idea that he had developed earlier with Gresham ykes (Sykes and Matza J 957)). whi.cn enable pe p,le methodically to counter the guilt and offset IJ1C censurethey might experience when o£[emling_ Matza claimed that delinquents C luld be fortified in their resolve by their a,bility to condemn their condemners '(by asserting that police and judges were

PAUL Ro.CK

themselves corrupt and invalid c r itic ) fi r instance); to deny injury (by asserting that n significant harm was d ne): to deny the ViL-U.Dl (by asserting that the victim was or no con equence, Or deserved what happened); or t appeal t higher loyalties (a Doble motive Gould be cited for an ignoble deed).

Steven Box attempted to take analysis yet further by re onciling Hirschi's emphasi on OCtal bonds with Matz.a' . conception of drift. He compiled his own new alliterati~'e II t efvariable that were held to affect contr I: secrecy (the delinquent's chances of concealment); skill (a mastery of knowledge and technique needed for the deviant act); upply (access to appropriate equipment}; ,'0 ial upport (the endorsemeur offer d by peer and thers); and lo/ffiboli upport (the endorsement ffered by account available in the wider culture) (197 J; 150). The greater the- a ce.. s to requisite

kills. secrecy, upplies, and social and symboli support, the greater would be the likelihood of offending.

Perhaps one ot the 11110 t telling and economical centributi ns to control Lheo.ry was supplied b), Harriet Wilson. Examinincg 'socially deprived' f rnilies in Binningham, futglanci .• he \Va.! tp conclude that Wb.IIl: t:Jf.lost sharply di'fferentiatl;!d families with delinquent thildren from tho e with none was simply what she called the exercise of 'ella per nage' (1980). Parents who acted as chaperon effectively prevented their hildren fT· m offending: th y were 0 onvlnced that the neighbourho din hich the}' lived was dangerous and contaminating that they ught to prot ct their children by keeping them indoors or under close supervi ion, e corting them to chool, and prohibiting them from playing with others defined a unde irable.

Control theory ha also been applied with effect to the problem of gender difference in offending. Apart from age, no other dernographic feature at present so p werfully dis rirninates between offenders and non-offenders. At one time, however,

cant criminological attention was paid to female crime becau .e· there was so very. little of it. As Lemert once . aid, Lik.e uster's men, criminologists rode to the sound of the gun, and there were fe\ female gun indeed firing. By contra t, what made male offending appear s interes tirrg wa it sheer seriousne and c, Ie.

H wever. when feminist criminologists and other began to sk Travi Hir hi's central question (without actually citing Hin chi him elf). female offending be arne analytically transformed preci 'ely because iL wa so rare, There was the new and intriguing riddle of the conforming woman, and the riddle was answered, in part, b}' reference to the 'effects of differenuals in control. I n particular, John Ha.gan and hi . colleagues put it that deviation as a orm of f1.111 and escitem ntwas more commortly open to males than to females because daughters are more frequently subject to inten e, contin u.1.1 , and di use family '()ll[t ] ill the privare, domestic sphere. That c nrrol, by exten ion, not only removed girl from the purview of agents of forma.l

ocial c rrtrol, the criminal justice system, and the p ibilit f public identification as criminal; it also worked more effectivel)' because it rested on the manipulation of emotional sanction rather than the imposition of ph: ical or cu todial control . Shaming strategies and the withdrawal of affection are seeming! more potent than 'fines, probation, on prison. It followed that the more firmly tructured and hierarchical the £1.mily. the harper the distinction drawn between male and femal.e roles, the more women 'Were confined to private space, the greater would be the disparity.

so roi.ocr AL THEO.lHES OF CRIME

59

oebllecnrales of male and female offe.n.di'llg (.'lee. Hagant al: .. 1979, 1935, and 1988). Pat Carlen gave that anaIys.is yet anather twist by reflecting that female criminals were most likely to emerge when domestic familycontrols wert' removed altogether, when wha.t she called the 'gender dear wns broken. young women left hQme or were taken into the care of the state, and were thereby exposed to controls characteristically experienced by men (1988.). 'The answer to the 'crime problem', Frances Heidensuhn once concluded, would have to lie in the. femimzaticn of control.

1l.ATrOAL caorca THEORY

An increasingly important, but not indispensable, foundation for controlrheurles is 'rational choice theory', ~ resuscitation of old utili'tanan theories that preceded sociology and wereonce linked \vi'th Adam rnith, Jeremy Bentham, Cesare Beccaria, and Tames Mlll. RatimJ.aJ choice. theory has recently been re-introduced to crimlnQl.ogy through the medium of a revived economies (If crime, and it brings wi:tl1' it the convenient fiction of economic man, a fiction which has an immedlateaffiniry with the criminal man (or woman) of controltheory Economic man, deemed to he continually looking about him for opportunities, making amoral and asocial makes to maximize his personal llti.liry. may not be an empirically-grounded or wellauthenticated entity; hut, it is argued, he does help to sim.l?Ii1Y model-making, strip away·what rational choice thearists conceive to be unessential theoretical and descriptive clurter, andaim directly al what are conceived to be practically useful pol'icy questions (see Clarke and Cornish 1985). Economic man In his (or her) criminal guise does Bot have Oil past, complex motives, rich socia.lli.fe, 'or, jndce.d, a recognizable social identity (a 'disposition' is bow ROn Clarke would put it (1992), ,. He or she does not need to have auy of those attributes, Indeed, he or she may not be perfectly rational, mudd,ling through, as we all do. on tbe basis of imperfect i.nfm:ma.tion and the presence of risks and un.ce.rtamty .. He or she is. very much like any one of LIS or, better still. like some Rve:rymall who stands absn·actly and plainly for \111 of us. He or she.needs no such c:omplex.ily. because what wcigh . in control theory is the piecemeal theoretical analysis of discrete instances of disembodied off-ending behaviour conducted b)r 'people rnaking decisions about the issues ofrisk, effort. and reward (Clarke and Cornish 2000:. 7)i ntbe settings in whish they may take place (see. introduction to Clarke and.Pelsen 1:993 l.

In Ren Clarke's particularly influential formulation, the rate of crime was held to 'v.ary in response to three brasdconfigurations of faders. The first grouping revolved arQund increasing :the effort Everyman would ha.ve to expend in corurnitring a crime, and that entailed what was called 'target hardeulng' (hydefending objects and pel.lple byshicld and other devices); (access control' (and that invoJved malting it difficult for predators to approach tll.rgets).; defl~ecti.l1g offender (by encouraging them, for example, to act in -a legitimate rather than an iLlegitimate manner through the provision of graff:it:i boards, litter bins. and spittoon )i and 'controlling facilitatcrs' (through gun control or checks an the sales of spray cans, for instance), The second revolved around increasing the risks of offending througb the screening of people: (by means of border searches, for example); formal surveillance hy :police, security guards. and

60

PAUL ROCJ(

oth rs: urveillance by employees su h c S bus ondu tors, con ierges, and janitor; and 'natural surveillance' (aided b lowering 01" removing ob tacles such as hedge and hrubs, installing do ed circuit television cameras, lighting the interiors 0 stores, and enhanced street lighting). The final grouplng wa 'redu lug the rewards of crime, Itselfcomposed of''targer removal' (using electronic transactions to reduce the number of cash pa:ym~nts and thus the accumulation of ca b in single places, for instance); property identification; removal of inducements (by the rapid cleaning of graffiti or repair of van dallied property); and rule etting (through income tax returns, cust m declarations, and the like) (taken from Clarke 1992: 13). A pur ult of th se common-sense, sometimes indi tinguishable, but nevertheless pracrical ideas allowed research officers at th Home Office to undertake a long chain of Illustrative studies, di c vering, for example, that c rnpact, oLd . drool building on mil sires were a third as Ukely to be burgled a large, sprawling, modern buildings with their many point' of access and weak possibilities of urveillance ( ee Hope' 19M2); or that there was some lWtmty tUlles as much malicious damage en the uppet tha.!1 on the 111we.1' decks of 'one man'. doable-decker buses whose drivers' power of urveillance were confined to one level only (Mayhew et I'(t. 1976; 26).

None of those variables touched on conventional 0 iological que irions about, ho offender. might be, what they think, and how lhey aLL (and f r that rational choice theori ts have been ritidzed (5 e Wrigbt and D cker 1997). They c nceutrated instead On the imagined impact 0 different forms f control on Everyman or Everywoman abroad in space. and from that it wa but a bon step to extend control the qf to an analssisof the di, ciplines that are built into everyday. ocial practices, on the one hand, 1I nd into the social use of space. en the ether,

R TLNE ACTJVJTIE. . THEORY

Ron larke, the ituauonal oont 1'01 theorist, and MarCD Felson, the theorist of crime and routine actlvhles, agreed thaI Lhe) shared ideal in orrunon ( ee Clarke and FeJ on 1993) as well a idea.!. apart (thus ituational ontrol theory is micros Opt. routine activiti "theory largely macro rcopic in it applicati D (Clarke and Cornish, undated 25»). larke and hi. olleague had asked what prevented pecific criminal 'incidents from occurri ng in pecifi situations. Pelson asked how" such. incident originate or are checked in the routine activitjes of mundane social life (1994). [ust as Clarke and other bad ernpha ized how. for- explenatory purposes, it was convenient to as ume OInt offender were little different from anyone cis , so Pelson and hi' colleagues argued that most criminal are unremarkable, unskilled, petty, and nonviolent people much like 11 " Just as control theorists made u t: or a tacit ver Ion of

riginal sin, 0 routine activities theory adopted a aiel of presuppositions about basi human Irailty, the importan e of temptation and pr v carion, and the part played by idlene . ('We are 11 born weak. but ... Fe are taught, elf-control', Pel on claimed (1994: 20)).

The routine activitie criminologist would argue that the analysis of predatory crime does not necessarily require weighty causes. Neither does it demand that IJ1e theorist commit the 'like-causes-like' faUa.c:y which covertly insists that a

61

'!'3thol:ogicaJ' pheIlorrieru:u! such as crime must be explained by a pathological condition such as alienation, poverty, &unily dy un tion, or oppre ion. Crime was taken to be embedded in the ver)' architecture of everyday life. More precise! • it wa to be found in the onvergellGe ill space of what were called motivat d offender, suitable targets, and capable guardians (see ohen and Felson 197~): being affecte [ by such matters as the weight, value, Incidence, and distribution of stealable g ods (the growth ill the ql,laJtity of p rtable, high-co l goods udi as video-recorder will e.ncourage more theft, for instance); the impact of m tor car (they <lid rapid +light. permit the di erect transportation of object > and give ril e to a geographical dispersal ofthe popularion which dilutes surveillance], habits of leisure (adoles rent now have larger swathes of empty time than did their predeces ors, time in which they can get up to ntis. hief); habits of work (when all member of a household are in employment, there wiU be no apable guardians to protect a h me); habits f residence (. inglepeopl are les effective guardians of property than are larger hou eholds): the growth of technology (telephones, fin instance, amplify the public' ab.ility to report crime): and so all. It is an uncomplicated enough theory but again, like irs mear neighbour. control theory, it does ask empiri ally productive question .

CRIM_E, CONTRO.LJ AND SPACE

THE CHI AG sao L

Routine activtties theory and coutrol theory both talk aboutccevergence in Space, an 1 spa ·e ha always been analytically to the fore in criminology. Indeed, one of the earliest and most productive of the research traditionslaid down ill crimin logy wa. the social e 91 gy and urban mapping practi ed by the S 0.01 gy department of the University of ·hicago in the 1920s and beyond (see Park 1915; Thrasher 1927; and Landesco 1968).

As cities gr~)\Y, it was held, s there would be a progre.s ive and largely spontaneous differentiari n of pace, population, and function that c ncentrared different gTOUpings in different areas. The main organizing structure was the zone, and the Chicago sociol.ogi, ts discerned five principal c ncentric zones shaping the city. the central busines distr] ,t at the v:ery core; the 'zone in transition' about that centre: all area of stable working-class 110ll_ ing; middle-cia hall ing, and the outer suburbia.

The zone in transiti n was marked by the greate t vlatility of its re idcnt . It wa an area of ornparati ely heap rents, weak ada! c nrro I, internal cial differentiation, and rapid physi al change. It was to the zone in tran iti n that new immigrant groupings most frequently came, and it wa there that they ettled into what were called 'natural area. " small communal en la esthat were relatively homogeneous in

ompo iti n and culture. hicago odologisn plotted the incidence of 00;11 problem on to cen us maps of the city, aud it ... vas the 'Zone in tran ilion that was found repeatedly to hou. e the largest proportions of the poor, the illegitimate, the illiterate, the mentally ill (see Faris find Dunham 1939),jl1venile delinquents (Shaw and McKay

PAUL ROCK

194Z). and prostitutes '(Reckless 19 J). The zone in tran ition was virtually coextern ive with what was then de crib d social pathology, N t only were formal so iaI controls held to be at their weakest there (the zone in transition was, as it were,

o ially d.islocated from the formal institutions and main body f American society (see Whyte 1942))i but informal social controls were eroded by mor<II. and erial diversiL'y) rapid population mneemeni, and a lack of strong and pervesree local institutions: 'contacts are extended, heterogeneous groups mingle. neighborhoods disappear, and people, dep.ri ed of Iocal and family tie , are forced!' 'live under ... 100 e, transient and imper onal relati n ' (Wirth L964: 236).

number of the early hi ago iologist united ocial ec ] gy, the tudy of the

patterns formed by group living together in the am pace, with the fieldwork methods of social anthropologp, to explore the traditions, cu toms, and practice of the residents of natural area'S. They found that, while there may well have been II measure of soda! and moral dislocation between the ZOne in transition and the wider society, as well a vvith11'l (he zone in transition if.sdf, those natural areas could also manifest a remarkable coherence and persistence of culture and behaviour rhat were reproduced from generation to generation and from immigrant group to Immigrant group within. the same terrain over time. Delinquency was, in effect, not disorganized at all. but a table attribute f s cial Iife, an example of continuity in change: 'to a very great extent .•. tradition ofdelinquency are preserved and transmitted through the medium of social contact with the unsupervised play group and the more highly organized delinquent and criminal gang' ( haw and McKay 1971: 260). Cultural trw mission was to be the focu 0 the work pm tied by a small group or second generation Chicago sodologists. Under the name of 'differential as ociation', it wa

tudied 3.. a normal process ef Iearning motives, skills, and mea.I~Jing in the company of others who boee criminal traditions (see Suiherla nd and Cressey 1955,).

That urban research wa to prepare a diver e legacy for criminology: the patial analysis of crime; the study of ubcultures (will h I shall touch on below); the epidemiology of crime; rime a' an interpretive practice (which I hall al 0 tunch on): and mil h else. Let rr e turn first t s me example of parial analy L.

OONT.ROl. AND PACE: fiE.YOND THE CHICAGO CHOOt

The Chicago 'odologislS' preoccupation with the cultural and symbolic (ol'telate, of patial congregations of people was to' be steadily elaborated by criminolo~ist.", For instatKe,Wiles, Bottoms, and lheir colleagues, originally working at the University of

heffie1d, addedtwo important ob .ervations, They argued fir t that, in a then more tightly regulated Britain. ocial egregation did net emerge, a it were, organically with unplanned city growth, but Wilh the intended and un intended can equences of policy deci ion taken by local g ernment departmen re ponsiblc for hou rug ill large proportion of the p pulation in municipal accommodation. Housing allo arion wa an indirect reflection of moral judgements about tenants that resulted. OF were assumed to result, in the concentration of criminal population (see Bottoms et Iii. 1989). Fortner, and partly in accord with that argument, the r .... putations of natural areas themselves became 11 crimlnological issue: how was it thanthe moral meaning

SOC] LO [CAL THEOR_[ES OF R.IM

attach d to ;pace by residents and ut iders affe_ ted people' reputations. hoiees, and' a ti o? ne' vet)f address ould be ome a constraining moral fact that affected not only how one would be treated by 01 hers in and about the criminal juice system ( ee Darner 1974), but also how one would come to rate one elf as a potential devlant or conformist (see Gill r 977).

eCOndI)f. Bottoms and his colleague argued, while the Chicago' ociologistl-. may have examined the geographical di tnbutlon of offenders, it was in tructive also to scrutinize how offending .it elf could be plotted. becau e tile two mea ures need. not correspond (Baldwin and Bottoms 1976). Offending bas it maps. Ind ed, it appear to be den ely concenrrared, clustered around ffender 1 home, areas of work and recr arion, and the pathway in between (Brantingham and Brantingham 1981-_). So it wa that, pursuing routine 3 ti Hie 'the ry,' herman c nd hi colleague surveyed all c Us made l the police in Minneapolis in one year' and th y dis overed that a few 'hot spots' had exceptional densities of crime: only 3 per cent of all places produced 50 per cent of the calls' all robberies took place in only 2.2 per cent of places. all rapes in 1.1 per cent of places, and all car thefts in 2.7 per cent of places ( hermau ero], 1989; see also Roncek and Maier 1991).

E -EN IBL PACE

If trending ha its maps, 0 d es ocial control, and criminologisu and others have be ome ever more interested ill. the fashion in which space. c nduct, and control intersect. One rorerunner was [ane Jacobs, who speculatedab ut the relations between dry landscapes and informal controls, arguing, for example, that dense, busy thorotlghfar . have tn,any mere 'eyes 0.11 !he street' ami opportunities for witness reporting and by. hinder intervention, than sterile pedestrian zones or stre ts without stores and other lures (Jacob. 1965).

The idea ofdefensible space'. in particular, has been borrowed rom anthropology and architecture, coupled with the concept of surveillance, and put to work In analysing formal and informal re pon e to different kinds of terrain. 'Defen .ible pace' itself lean n the psych logical notion of 'territoriality', the en e of atta hmentand

ymbolic investment that people can acquire in space. erritoriality i. s held by ome to be a. human univer al, an imperative that leads people to Wish to guard what is their own. Those who have a stake m a physical ares 1 it is argued, will care for it. police it, and report strangers and others who have no apparent good purposeto be IJJer4l!.

What" is quite critical is bow space i marked out and bounded. The prime author of the idea of defensible spa e, 0 car Newman (1972) claimed that, other thing being equal, what induces territorial sentiment is a dear demarcati n between private and ~ ublic areas, even if the demarcation are only token, The private will be protected in ways that th public i not. and the fault f many domestic and institutional buildings i that eparations and segregati n are not dearly enough inscribed in design. Alice

oleman and others took it that improvements to the physical structures of built pace could then achieve a significaru impact on. rime: above all, he insisted on restricting i.lCCeSS 'to sires: reducing the interconnections between buildings; and ernphasizing 'the distinction between public sad private space and minimizing what

o car Newman called confu ed pace', the space that wa neither OIJe nOT the other ( oleman I 985, 1986). he has been roundly aulted, both method logi ally and anll!ytically, for her negle of dimensions ther than the phy leal, but she and Newman nave succeeded in intrcdu ins an analytic focus on the lnterrelatiou between 'pace and informal centrol that was largely absent before. nly rarely have criminologists such as Sfuapland and Va,gg enquired into the informal practices of people as they 'observe, Interpret, and. re pond to the ambiguous, the deviant, and the noa-devianr ill the spaces around them (1988). It i Shapland and VaggJ contention that there is a continuou , active, and often informed proce.ss of urveillance tran 'acted by p ople en the ground; a proces whi h is 0 dis reet that it h s aped much ormal noli c, and which me hes only haphazardlywilh the wllr.:k of the police.

RIME, POWERl AND PAC

urveillance has Dot always been construed as neutral or benign, and there are current debates ebout what i ucwe t forms might portend. Even it sponsers in government departments and criminal justice agencies have spoken Informally about their anxiety that people are being encouraged to become unduly fearful f crime and to retreat into private fastnesse . Jl began to be argued, especially by those who Foil wed Michel Fou auk that a 'punitive city' was in the malting, that in tao ben' word, there was 'a deeper penetration of soci-al coutrol into the octal body' (1979: 356).

, orne came to claim n t only thatthere had been a [Dove I regressively to differennate and elaborate the distribution of controls in spac .buralso that there had been 3. proliferating surveillance of dangerous areas, ofteacondu ed abliquely and ,,,,ith an in. reasingty. a.dvanced te 'hmllogy. Michel Pencaul t's ( T 977) dramatic simile of Ieremy Bcutham's model prison, the Panoptieon, was to be put L(I mil sive use in criminology. lu il il the Pall pticon, or inspection house. was supposed to have permitted the unobserved ob ervarion of many inmates around the blight, illnminated rim of a

ircular prison by the few guards in its ob cured centre, just a the uncertainty of unob erved observation worked to make the controlled (oJ10-01 themselves, so, Foucault and those who followed him wished to argue, modern society is c ming to ex.emplify the perfection of the automatic exercise of power through generalized

urveillance, The carceral soriety wa a .machine in whi h every newas supposed to be caught (even, it seem , I.l'1C police, wha :may urvey one another as .... 'fill as the wider population (see IlII! 'firm's, 11 November 1999)): it relied on diffuse control through unseen monitoring and the Individualization and 'interiorization' of control (Gordon 1972). Public space, it was . aid, was becoming exposed to' ever more perfunctory, distant. and te hnolegically-driven policing by formal state gencies, while control in private and semi-private space (the pace of the hopping mall, university amp , and "theme park) was itself bee ming more dense. privatized, and widespread, placed in the private hand' of ecurity guard and tore detectives, and reliant Oil a new electronic surveillance (Davis 1992b: 1 3),

A paradlgmatic case study has been supplied by hearing and St~nnlrlg's ethnography of DisueyWorld II.~ \I 'private, quasi-feudal domain of onrrol' (Shearing and '(enning 1985: 347) that was cOltlprt'ilenrively, eli 'creetly, and adeptly controlled

by employees. exten ive surveillan e. the encouragement f elf-di cipline, and the very ph, icaI configuration of space. The nature of crime and deviance itself can undergo change in uch a transformed environment: they are no longer always and everywhere 0 markedly affront to deep values but are, instead, \rer}' often breaches of Impersonal, merally-neurral, technical controls (see Llanos and Doug1a20007 270-71).

What also underlies much of that vi ion is a nev , complementary . Ire s on the

ociology af risk, a focus linked importantly with the work of Ulrich Beck (although he did not him elf write about crime (J 992). It hal! been, .gued that people and group are be oming Significantly tratified by their expo ure t risk and their power to neutralize harm. The rich can afford private protection, the poor cannot, and a new e logy emerge (Simon 19 7). Phrased only slightly differentl ] and merged 'with the newly-burgeoning ideas about the pervasiveness of surveillance by machine and persou ( ordon 1986-7 and Lyall 1994), those theorie . of ri k uggest that control's are being applied by state and private org<miza"Lien- not on the- basis of some moralistic conception of individual wrong-doing, but all a foundati n of the identification, clas ification, and. management of groups categorized by their per ei cd dangerousnes (feeley and imon L992; Simon and Feeley I 95). Group are becoming ever more rigidly egregated in 'pace: some (members f the new dangerou cia se or under- la ) being confined to prison. semi-freedom under surveillan e, or parole in the com rnu ni I)'; other (the more affluent) retreating into their locked and gated commumtie ecure zones, and private ·paces. There are new bifurcation of cit

pace into a relatively uncontrolled <badlands' occupied by the poor and highlycontr 11 d 'security bubbles' inhabited by the ri h. Geographical and sa ia.l exclusion thereby conspire to corral together populations of the unprotected, victimized and ictimizing-c-the mentally disordered, the youn,g, and the horneles -reiJliorcing both their vulnerability and their propensities to offend ( arlen 1996; Hagan and M arthy 1998].

RADICAL CRIMINOLOGY

o far. control ha been treated without much direct allusion ttl the power, politics. and inequalities that are its bedfellows; There wa to be 11 relatively short-lived but 3 tive challenge to such quiescence from the radical, new, or critical criminologic, of the late L 9605 and 1970s. crirninol gies that claimed their mandate in ~'li'x:ism (Taylor, \ alton.and You ncr I 973),anarch.i m (Kittrie 1971; oben 19H5), or American populism (Quinney 191'0), and whose ambitions pointed l p litical activism or praxis (Mathiesen 1972).

Crime conrr I v as . <lid to be an oppress ive and mystifying proce s that worked through legl lation, law-enforcement, and ideological stereotyping to pre erve unequal class relations ( hambliss 1976; BOK 1983), The radical political economy of crime sought ihiefly to expo e the hegemonic ideologies that rna ked the 'real' nature of crime and repression in capitalist ociety. Most mundane crime, it was argued, was

66

PAUl. ROCK

actually less politically or so ia1l)' c n equential than other ocial evils such as alienation, exploitaticn, r racism. ( craton 1987). Much pr letarian offending could be redefined as form of redi rributlve cla s justice, Or as a ign of the possessive individualism which resided in the ore values of capitalist ociety, rhninal ju tice it. elf was engineered to create VI ibJe crowds of working-class and black capegollts who

ould attract tl'te public gaze away from the more serious delicts of the d.ch and the more serious ms of a capitali III that was usually said to be in terminal crisis, If the working class reacted in hostile fashion to the crime in their midst then they were in effect. little more than the victim of a false con sciousness WID h turned proletarian against proletarian, bla k again L black, inflated the importance petty problems, and oncealed the true nature of bourgeois society. So o nstrued, ignification, the act of giving meaning, wa either manipulative Of misconceived. a matter of giving and receiving incorrect nd deformed interpretation of reality. Indeed. it wa in the very nature of subordination in II capitalist society that most people must be polHically l.l[jenlightened about crime, controi, and much else, arid the ta!ik of the radi al criminologist was' to expose, denounce, and demystify.

lt was concluded variou Iy that crime was not a problem which the poor and their allies should actually addres (there were more important matter fo ciali t to think about: Hirst 1975); that the crime which ShOl~Ja banal ed wa the wrong-doing of the p werful (the wrong crimes and criminals were being JJ rerved:

Chapman 1967; Reiman ]990); or that crime and it problems would shrivel into insignificance a a crimin geni capitalism gave way [0 the tolerant dlversit}' of ocialism" ayler, Walton. and Young 1973}. The crime and criminals that chiefly warranted attention were tho e exceptioual examples oflaw-breaklng that seemed to represent an incipient revolt against the state, and thejl demanded cultivation as.!il!b~ett. of study, understanding, and pes ihlc peliricizariou, Black prisoners .. in particular, were sometimes depicted, and depicted themselves, a prisoners of class a! race W'oII (Cleaver 1969}. Prisons were the point of greatest slate repression, and prison riot a p ssible spearhead arrey lution.

In its early guise, radical criminology withered somewhat under a quadruplebarrelled assault, In me places, and in America especially (where it had never been firmly implauted), it ran foul of university pelitic > and some criminology department , su h as that of the University of California at Berkeley, were actually do ed down. More often, nldkal criminology rue! not lend itself to the government-funded, polic:y~driVC:lDi, 'soft money', empiricist research that came to dominate sdioel of criminology in North America in the 197'05 and 1 980s.

econd was the effect of the publication af mass ictim surveys in the 1970s and 1980 (Hough and Mayhew 1983) which disclosed b tTl the extent ofworking-cla s , victimization and the manner in which it revolved around intra-elas , rather than inter-cla • criminality. It wa evident that crime was a manife t problem for the poor,

dding immeasurably to their burdens. and difficult to di mi as an ideological di traction (David DOWJle called it a regn: sive tax on the p or). Two prominent radical criminologist carne frankly to concede that they had believed that 'property {fences [were] directed solely, against the bourgeoisie and that violence again t the per on [Wits] carried out by amateur Robin Hoods ill the course (j[ {heir tighl'eous

SOCIO:tOGTCAJ~ THEORHS OPIUMR

67

attempts to redistribute wealth. AU of this [was], alas. untrue' (Lea and Young 1984: 262).

'Third was the critique launched from within the left by a new generation of ferni.Il:ist scholars, who asserted that the victimization of worne.n was JlO slight affa:ir 01: ideological diversion, and that rape, sexual assault, child abuse, and. domestic violence. should be taken very seriously indeed (Smart 1977). Not only had the female criminal been neglected, the)' said, but so. bad the female victim, and :it would not do to wait until the revolution for matters to be pLIt right. Once more, a number of radical criminologists gave ground. There had been, JOlle.~, Maclean, and Young observed, 'a general lend.ellty,ill radical thought to idealize their historical subject (in Lhls case the working class) and to play down intra-group coaflict, blemishesend sociil disorganizatlon;. But the power .f the feminist case resulted in a sort of cognitive chirophrenia amongst radicals ... ' (Tones e.t al. 1986: :3). The revitalized ttimino1ag)1 of women [S the subject of Chapter 4 in this haudbook

Fourthly, therewas a critique launched belatedlyfrcra non-feminlsr criminologists: who resisted the imperious claims of radical criminology to be /1helQl1eful.ly social theo:ry IOf crime (Downes and Rock 1979i Inciardi 1980). Marxist and radical theories of crime, it was argued, lacked 11 comparative emphasis: they neglected crime in 'noncapitalist' and 'pre-capitalist' societie and crime in 'socialist' societies. There was a naivety about the expectation that crime would wither a,way as the state h elf disappeared after the I;"e.volution. There was an i:r:reponsibility about radiea! arguments (hat 'reformism' would only strengthen the g,rip of the. capitalist system.

'Left realism' waS to be the outcome. and it was represented by Jock Young. one of lts parents, as a novel fusion of analyses of crime i.n the vein of anomie' theory and symbolic interactionist analyses of the reactions ,,,Ihich crime. evoke (Young 1997: 484). It was 'realist' because, refusing to accept the so-called 'leftr idealists" dismissal of crime as an ideological tric'k,it acknowledged the practical .force of crime i.I1 society and its especially heavy impact on the POOl', minerity ethnic people and women, It was 'left' because it focused descriptively and. PQ!jtica.Lly Oil. the structural inequalities ofclass, race, and gender. Its project was to examine panerns ofcrime and corurol as they emerged out of what Young came to call the 'square of crime', a field of forces dominated by the sra tel the victim. the o(fender, and the puhfic.

Left realism was to follow the earlier radical criminologist's injunction to act, belt action was now as much (if not more) in the service of more effective and practical poli ing and crirae reduction strategies as, in [he. cause of revolation. Left realists joined the formerly disparaged administrative crimieologists' working in and For the state to work on Skll!ltionally-based projects to prevent crime and the fear of crime, They designed ne.w and Ico,nfusing confignrarions of streets to make it more difficult fQf 'kerb-crawlets' to cruise in search of pro titutes, They explored the impact of Irnpreved street l.1gbtillg. on the fear oC crime, They assisted. in the rehabilitatien of delapidated housing estates, Were irnot fur theirtheoretical preambles, 1t was at times difficult to distinguish between the programmes of tile Home Office Research Unit or the Ministry of the SoliciaoJ General, of Canada, on the. one: hand, and of left realism, on (he other.

ILieft realism was radical criminology's pr(1;;'(.i5, its, more scholarly current continued

68

PAUL ROCK

to evolve, and it evolved in diver e directions, A number of crimin lagi st began to t urn away from ana! rse of call a tion towards studie of curren t (Cohen 1985; Inion t993) and historica] forms of social control (see cull 1979). originally rmder the influence of E.P. Taompson and Eric Hobsbawm and latterly under that of Michel Foucaalr. Others responded ta the ~, ider sheeries that I e,g,m to dominate sociology proper in the [980 .and 1990s. incorporating them to write abo'llt crime, pestmodernism fo.f late modernity}, and globalization. and pr clueing what was, in effect, t he 'fully social theory' promised by the nev ... · criminologists back in 1973. Above all, that promise was fulfilled by books publi ned in 1999 by two of the original troika of new erirninolegists: Ian Tayl r' Crim« in C0l1t·~1 and Jock Young's TIlt: Exclmive Society.

Crime ;,1 Coruext catalogues a series of crises flowing from tran iitions in the politi <11 andeconomic structures of society, and the manner in whi h they bear down upon poverty, class, gender, race, and the f.1nlily to affect the national and tran - cati, nal envimnmenrs of crimeand control. Tin! Exclusive Society i subtitled 'So(l<ll Exclusion, Grime and Difference ill Late Modemitt, and its focu is more narrow hat neverthelesseffective, concentrating upon the 0 ial and politi al consequences of va t increases in crime in tile W, st. Crime is held by Young to beno long r regarded al abnormal. the property of a pathological few who can be restored therapeuticallj t the ec.ur:ity a a moral community alone with itself, but normal; the action of a

ignificant, obdurate minority f thers who are impatiently excluded and demonized in a world newly in ecure, fractured. and preoccupied with problems of risk and danger.

FUNCTIONALIST CRIMrNOLOGY

Another. apparently dissimilar but substantially complementary. theory- presented deviance aad control as forces that w rked discreetly to maintain social order. Fun - tionalism was a theory of social systems or wholes. developed at the beginning f the twentieth century within a ocial anthropology gT<Mn tired of speculative ac ountsof the origins and evolution ef societieswhich lacked the written hi. tory to support them. and dedicated to what wa seen to be the dentine pursuit of intellectual problems. tt was argued that Ihe business or ~l. social scien e necessitated moving enquiry beyond the reach of COIl1.l.TIOn sense or lay knowledge to a.n examinatiou of the unintended, obje ::tive consequences or action thai were vlsible only to the 'trained eye.

There were three dear impllcati ns, 'irt, what ordinary people thought they were d ing could be very different from what they actuall a hi veil. The functionalist wa preoccupied only with obje .tive results) and people' own ace unts of action held little interest. econdly, the functionali l looked at the impact made by in titution upon institution, structure upon srructure, in societies that were remarkable f()r their capacity to persist over time, Thirdly, those con equences, viewed as a. totality, constituteda system whose parts were thought not only to :rlfea one another and the Whole,

SQC[OL.OG1CAL l'REORTES OF GRIM'

but which also effected them ill. return. 11'0 be sure, some institutiorrs were relatively detached, but funcliomili,sts would have ru:gl:lled tb,at the alternative P110posi.IiOll-that sccial phe.1l0!llfna: lack all influence. upon One another, that 'there ,",,'iIS no fnnc.tio·oal recipmclty between them=was conceptually insupportable. S:y ternic interrelations were an analytic iI. prilllr'i" a matter of self-evidence s0Cf1m.pellimg that 1Gngsley Davis could a~g:\,1e thM 'WP' 31'(> all f1,Jl1ctiOltalists 00\'" (Da'vLs 1959).

There have been very few dedicated functionalist criminologists. Euncticnalists tend. to deal with tilile properties of h,b: le sys:re.1;.11S rather than wttb empirical fragments, But rime and deviance did supply a particularly in'ttiguing laboratory rO'l' thoughl-c:.l{pcrinH~nts about social order. It was easy enough to contend that reLiglorJ oredacariea shaped social cohesion" hut how much harder it would be 10 shaw that crime ucceeded ill dOll.!} so. After all, 'everyone knew' thar crime undermined sodal structures. It followed that functionalists occasionally found it tempting to try to confound. that knowledge by showing that, to the contrary" the seemingly recalcitrant case of crime co LLld be shown scien tUically to con'tdlnrte to the working of the social system. From time to time. therefore. chey wrote .about crime te demonstrate the potency of their Ili.eory. OnJ)' one functionalist, its grand master Talcott Pauions, lever made the obvious. and therefore un atisf),illg. point that crime could be what was called 'dysfunctional' or injurious to the social system as it was then GOIl tituted (Parsons 1951). Everyone else asserted that crimeactually worked mysteriously to support it.

The outcome \V!JS a smnewhat miscellaneous collection 'of papers documenting, the multiple functions of deviance Kin.gsley Davis showed that prostitution shored up monogamg by providing an unemotional, impersonal, and unthreatening release for the sexual ener.gy of the promiscucus married male (Daeis L937) (Ma.ry Mclnrosh once wondered what the ptomiSClJ0L1S married female was supposed to, do about her sexual energy); Ned. Polsky made much the same claim for pornogrephy (Pol'i:ky 1967); Daniel BeU showed tha1t' rackereer1r1g provided 'queer ladders 'Of success' and political and social stability in the New York dockside (1960); Emile Durkheirn (1964) and George Herbert Mead (1918) conteuded that the formal rttual of trial and punishment enhanced scciel solidarity and censolidated moral boundaoies, and, mare complexly. Mary Douglas (1966), Kai Erikson (1966), Robert Scott (1972), and others argued that' deviance offered social ~yst£ms a dialectical tool for the clarification and management ofthreats, ali1bigLJit'ie~, and anomalies in classification systems, The li l could be extended, but all the arguments tendedte one end: what appeared, 0tl the surface to undermine social order accomplished the vel'y reverse. A sot iological counterpart of the invisible hand transmuted deviance into [il force for cohesion.

unctionalisrrt was to be discarded by I1Jm.IlY crimluolegists in time: it smacked too much of teleology (the doctrine that effects can work retro pecti'vdy to act as the causes oJ evellts}jil defied rigurous empirical iovesti:gatioll (see Co:t~e.neJl1999: 75); and, for some liberal and radical criminnlogists.It represented a form of Panglossian cnnservarisrn that championed the status q!IQ. But its ghost linger 0'11. Ally who would argue that, cOJJ_mlry to appearances, crime and deviance buttress social order; any who argue for the study of seamless systems: any who argue that the sociologist

PAUL ROC]C

hould mistrust people's own a counts of their actions; any who insi t that social cience is the Stl1dy of unintended! consequences; all these must hare something of the functionalist's standpoint. AflOIlIie theories that represented crime as the ystem-

t.abili:zing, unintended consequence of strains in the secial order are one example (see Medon 1995):. deviance in that gui e becomes the patterned ncijustm,ent" that defu e an otherwise disruptive canllkr and reconcile people ro disadvantage (n.1t1Hmgh,:!Is [ ha.ve argued, the theories can also enzi age conditions ill wh.ich crime become '~, tern-threatening') .• orne vel' i ns of radical criminology provide another example. More than one criminologist has argued that crime, deviance, and c ntrol were neces-

ary for the survival of capitalism ( tinrhcombe 1968), FQr in tance, although the did not talk explicitly of'fullction', the neo-Marxlsts, BaH (1978~, Pearce (l976), and Reiman (1990)., were recognizably functionalist .in their treatment of the criminal justice system's production ofvi;. ible andscapegoated roles for the proletarian criminal, roles that atrra ted public anxiety and C).uttDge, deflected anger away from the state, and thereby ema culated political opposition, Consider, for example, Ferrell and .. anders's observsriou that 'the !;impJL tic crimlnogenic models at the cere of ... con tructed moral panics. _ . defied attention from larger and more complex political problems like economic and ethnic inequality, and the alienation of yeung people and creative \ orkers Ircrn confining instituti ms' (J 995: 10).

SIGNIFICA 10

LABELLJNG THEORY

Perhaps the only other outstanding big idea is signification, the interpretive practi es that order social life. There has been an enduring strain of anal) is, Itnked most particularly to symbolic interaction! m and phenomenolog , which insists that people do not, and cannot, re spend immediately. uncritically, and passively to the world <a it is', Rather they respond to their ideas of that world. and the bu iness ofsociology is to capture, under rand, and reproduce those ideas,; examine their interaction with one another; and analy e the flroces·ses and structures that generated them .. Sociology becomes the sru.dy of people and practices as symbol.ic and ymboli7jn,g processe ..

entral to tha1l idea is reflectivity, rhec:apa:['ity of conseiousnes to translate itself into its own object, People arc able to think <11 out themselves, define themselves in varian ways; toy with different identities, and proje t them elees imaginatively into any manner of contrived ituation. They can view themselve vicariously by inferring the reactions of' ignifi ant thers', and, 4J so 'taking the rol of the other], move ymbolically to a distance outside thernselve to in pe t how they might appear_

Elaborating action through'. ignificant gestures" the symbolic projection of act! and identiti '. they can and ipate the likely respon es of others .. and tailer their own pr ective acts to accommodate them (Mead 1934). In all this •. ocial worlds are compa,ded syl't!1btxLicaHy ioto the phrasing of action, and the medium that makes that possible i language.

·OC[OI.OGJ AL THEQiRlllS ·OF CR]MI!

71

L&ngu<lge is held to 0bjectify, stabilize), and ~el1d meaning. Used cQmr~rsatiol1a1ly in the an.ti.cipa,tioD of an act, it perrmits people to be both their own subject and object, speaker an.d thingspoken about, T and 'me', openiJlg up the mind to reflective action, Conferring names, i.t enables people to impart meral and sod!!:l meanings to their own and other • motives (Mills 1940; .aco'tt and Lyman ]'970), lllten'tiO'lIlS, and identities, U will matter a great deal if someone is defined as eccentric, err3:tic, or Jtla:d; a drinker, a drunk, or an aleeholic a lovelorn adruirer OJ: a stalker, Consequences will f1o~'ri' fTllm naming, consequerrces that .l'Ifect AoL (mly how one regards oneself and one's position in the world, but also how one may be treated by others, Naming creates a self.

Teall posed to the study of rime and deviance, symholi.c interactionism and phenomenology g.ave prominence to the processes by which deviant acts amI identities are: asserabled, Interpreted, judged, and controlled (Katz. 1'988). ACQre pair of articles was Heward Becker's <Becoming a Marihuana User and 'Marihuana Use and Social Control' e1963), both of which described the patterned sequc.nce of step . that coUld shape the experience, moral character, and [-ate of one 'who began to smoke marihuana, Becoming a marihuana user wa~ a tentative process, developing stage by stage, whicb req uired the user satisfactorily to learn, mas'ter, a,ndinte.rpret techniques, neutralize fm'b.iddillg moral images of use and users, and succeed, in disguising signs of use in the pre ence 'of those who might disapprove. It became paradigmatic.

Deviance rtselfwas to become more generally likened t a moral career consisting of interlocking phases, each of which fed into the next; each 'Of which presented differen t exis'telltia] problems and oppcrtu nities, each of which was populated b), dlfferent constellations of significant others; and each at which could dis'-inctively mould the self of the deviant, However, the process was also assumed to be contingent. Not every phase was ine¥i.hlble or irreversible, and devian could aftenelect to change QJ:rection. Luckenbill and Best provide it graphic description:

Riding escalators between floors may be an effective metaphor fur respectable o:rgul1iz:atiol1al careers, laut j,l fll,ils til) capture thecbaracter , f deviant careers. A 111 ore approp,r.,j ate image is a walk i.n the weeds, Hue. semepeople take the pathways marked by theirpredecessors, while otl'leiS strike out On their own. Some waik slowl)" exploring before n1o\,jng (H1, but others run, caught ~IP in the action. Some have 3 destination in mind and proceed pmrplIsiveJy; others view the trip and .. njo>, it for its own sake, Eyen tho e intent On reaching a.destinarlon may stray from the path; they may try 1.0' shortcut or they may lose sight of familiar landmarks. gel lost, and find it nece.~ary 1:0 backtrack r I 98] : 201].

Wha.t punctuates such acareer is acts of running, the deployment of language to confer and fix the meanings ofbehavlocr, and symbolic interactionism and phenomenology became lblOWll'w1thio criminology as 'labelling theory'. One (If the most frequently cited of all passages in sociological criminologywas Becker's dictum thar 'deviance is not a C1jua)jty of the act the person commits, but rather a consequenceof the application by others efrnles and sanctions to-an "offender", The deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied, deviant behavior is behavior thai' pimple S~ label> (J 963: SI).

Labelling it: elf is contingent.lvlany deviant acts are not witnessed and most are not

72

PAUL ROCK

reported. People m~y well be able to resist cr mt)dify deviant desIgnations \!lhen a,ttl;WptsarC' Blade to apply them: :dler all" we are antitlllaUy b0mbruxled, by attetnpts to label us and re\;of surceed, Bur there are special occasions when the 'IlbiHty of the self to resist <ilefini.ti(.'lO: i circurnsoribed; and most fateful. ofall may be an ensounter with agents ef 'the criminal justice s.yste'm, becaese they WOTik wei th th€ p()W1?r a.nd authority ef the tate. In uch mee,ti.flgs. criminals and deviants are obliged to CUJ;lIroull1ot only their OWI1 andothers' possibly defensive. fleeting, and [nSllbstru"ltial raacticas to what they have done, thei~ <primary deviation', but also contend publicly with the fonllru reat'li.ans of others. n:nd their deviation can t:hell become a response W responses, 'secondary deviation': 'When a Jl>erson begins to em.ploy his deviant behavior or a role based upon 11 as a. meaes. of defense; attack, .. or .adjustment It.O the overt and covert problems created by the consequent societal reaction to him, his deviation is secondary' (Leeiert 1.951: 76).

What is slgnrficantabout secondary deviarioa is tha1t it will be.a symbolic synthesis of more than just the meanings.and adivltd,d of primary deviation. It will at 0 incorporate the myt.hs, pro~essional knowh:dge, sten~Qtypes, and wprking assUlDptions of lay people, pnlic:e effice-rs, judges, medical praetirioners, prison efficers, prisoners, palli.cy -maleers, and politlctan . D.rug- users (see Schur 1963). mental patients (Goifm(lln J 968; Scheff 1966)), hesnesexaals (Hooker 1963'" and ethers may be obliged to. organize their sigr'lificaml gestllle5 and character around the public symbols of their beha¥lour, Wb-v they are and what they do, may then be explained as much by the symboHc incorporli.tion of a publit response. as by any set of original conditions, Control will be inscribed into the vccy fabric of a self

Wha.t is aliso Si~1 is that seccndary deviation entails confrcnraticnswith .11t:W obstacles, that fnredese future choice. Thus, Gary Marx has listed a number of the ironic wnse<il1eoces 'th.lt can flow from forms ef covert social control such as undercover policing a.ntt the work tlf agents pro1locatl!lIrs: they ,inclu.de generating I!I market for illegal goods; the provision of motises and meanings foriJlegal aC1i011; entrapping people in offences they might not t!lmen ... ise have ccmmitted, the suppl;y of false or misleading records; n~tal!atnq/ action aglll:inst Informers, and the like (Marx 1988.: '25-7)" Once plIbH.d), identified as a deviant. moreover, it becomes difficult for a person to slip back into the cenventional WOI:k1, and measures are being taken with increasing frequ.ency to enlarge the Ylsibility of the. rule-breaker. In the United States, far instance, '~Mega'n's Law' makes it mandatory in certain jurisdictions for the names of S~ offenders to he publicly advertised, possibly reducing risk but certainiy.freezing the criminal as a secondary deviant. All answering response to the dallgexouslr ampIHied problem :of the Ql>1tla.wed deviantis the increasing adoption lJy states of srraregies of restorative justice. based J!<1J"gcly on the work of Braithwaite (1IJS9), which arternpt to. unite till;: i:nfom.l,al control ofshamu]g by .!jigni1ii.t:ant others witJl rituals of re:in'l:egrll'ti.ol1 that w,o:rk agaiT1St .the allenaring eonsequencesof secondary deviation.

Borrowing its idea from Durkheim and labelling theory and its procedures from a number of forms of dispute resolution, btu from Maori practice in. particular, Braithwaite took it tnatshaming is al its most effective "'fben it is-practlsed by those whosecpinieas maUer to the devhmt-hisor her 'significant others'; and that it would work o111y to exclude and eslTange the deviant unless it: was accompanied by

OClOLOGI A TIl O!UES OF CRlME

73

rituals [reparation and restoration, efft: ted, perhaps, by th tendering and acceptance of a public apology. Reiruegrative .shaming' is currently one of the 'hig ideas' underpinning criminal justice poli y aero s the Western world, but also in South Afri a and elsewhere, where it is s en to be a return to the pra tlces of aboriginal justice.

CU TURE AND UBe lTUR."

Meanings and motive are 11 t e tal li hed and onfirmed by the elf in i elation, They are iii ocial accomplishment. and criminology has paid sustained attention to signi 1- cation a a collaborative.sub ultural proce , ubcullnres them elves are taken to be exaggerations, ac enruation , or editings of cultural theme prevalent lL1. the wider.

ociety. Any social group which has perrnanen e, closure, and common pursuits is likely LO engender, inherit, or modify n ubculrure: but the criminologist's particular interesr is in those subcultures tha;l condone, promote, or otherwise make possible the commission of delinquent acts. A subculture was not conceived to be utterl)r di tinct from the beliefs held b)1 people 1.11 large. Neither was it ne e sarilyoppo - irional.Jr w, 1:1 s[~bwlture, 110t a discrete ulture or a counterculture, and the analytic stre has tended to be on dependency rather than confli tor syrnboli auromony.

TIle materials 1'01' ubculrural theory are to be found across the broad range of criminology, and they could be combined In V3nOl]S proportions, Anomie theory

upplied the supposition that s icial inequalirie generate problems that may have delinquent solutions, and that those solution , in their turn, could be shared and transmitted by people thrown together hy their common disadvantage. Albert Cohen, the man who invented the phrase 'delinquent subculture', argued: 'The crucial eonditlon [or the emergence of new cultural ~. rrns is the existence, i neffective interaction with one another, f a number of acton; with irnilar problem. of adjustment' (1957: 59). The social anthropology of the Chicago school. channelled £01' a while into differential a sociation theory; supplied an emphasi up n the. enduring, intelligible, and locally-adap.ted cultural tradiri ns hared b th by profe sional criminal and by boy' Li ing, working, and playing together on the crov ded streets of morallydiffer ntiated areas, Retaining the idea of a 'subculture of delinquency' • avid Matza and' a number of eonrr 1 theorists peinred to the mannerin which moral proscriptions could be neutralized by in eking ommonly-availableextenuating accounts. Strands of 'Left realism' could be described as little mare than early ubcullural theory in a new guise. And symboli inreractiouismsupplied a fa IJ on the negotiatcd, collective, and processual character of meaning. In all thi I an argument ran that )Ioung men (it wa alma l always yc ung men), growing up in the city, banded together in group. or <near-groups' (Yablon "1' 1962) in the crowded public life of the streets, encountering common problem, exposed to common stereotypes and stigmas, subj (to irnils r formal controls, setting rhemsel eli against COmmon Ocher, who are used to define who they are, are likely to form joint interpretations th tare sporadicaUy favourable to delinquency, ubcnltural theory and research were to dominate explanations of delinquency until they exhausted them elves in the 19605.

ubcultural theory IC1Jt it elf to amalgamation with radical criminology, and

---I

74

particularly that criminology which was preoccupied with the reproduction of 13. inequalities through the workings of ide logy. In Britain, there was to be a renaissance of tlrromie-deriv~d ub ultural theory as a group of. do log' t centred areund tuart Hail. ail the Universitf of Birmingham ~ve special attenti ,n to the existential plight of roun~ working-class men about to enter I'he labour. market, 'the prototype for that work was Phil Cohen's analysis of proletarian cultures ill Londee: you~~g men responded to the decline of ommunlry, loss of class cohesion, and economic insecurity by resurrecting iJ1 ub ulrural form an idealized and exaggerated version of working-class masculinity that 'expres led] and resolv [d], albeit "magically," the c ntradictions which remain hidden or unresolved in the parent culture' (1 72~ 23), D viance became form of ymbolic resistance to tensions perceived through the mi ts offalse consciousnes , l.t was doomed to disappoint becaus it did Dot addres the root causesof di content, but it did offer a fleeting release. There was a contradiction within that vcr ion of subcultural theory because it was not easy to reconcile a suuctaral.Marxism which depicted adolescent culture a illusory wi.th a commltment to under. tanding meaning (Willi L977). But it was a spirited and vivid revival of II. theory that had gone into the doldrums in the 19605, and it continues to influence theorizing {see Ferrell 1993}, Indeed, interestingly, there are strong signs of a rtlpproehement betw-een critical cultural studies ana symb li interactionism (see Becker and McCalJ 1990).

CRIMINOLOGY AS AN ECLECTIC DISCIPLINE

It would be misleading to conclude that criminology can easily be laid Cltlt as an array of discrete clumps of theory.On the contrary, it has continually borrowed ideas from other discipline -. and ha .ompared, contra ted, amalgam. red, reworked, and experimented ith them to furni ·h an eclectic discipline marked by an ahundan e of the re ical overlap J synthe es, and confusions,

There are exchange and combinations of criminologieal ideas within di ciplines, For instance, sociological criminclogi I'.~ are exposed to change ill intellectual fashion in their parent discipline, and the result has been that almost every major theory in sociologv bas been fed in some form into criminology at some time, undergoing adaptstioa and editil1g in the proce ,and occasionally becoming very distant from its roots, Indeed. one of the distlnctive properties of that process is that riminology cal

ornetimes so extensively rework: imp rted idea that they will de clop well beyond their original limits in cielogy, becoming ignif ant c ntribution to socioIng! al theory in !heir own right. Ammiie, the symbolic intera tioni t conception of the elf and its other. and feminism arc exam Ies of arguments that have grown appreciably in scale and sophi tication within the special en ironment of criminology,

There are exchanges and combination, between discipline. nminology is \ hat David Downeswould call a rendez-vous discipline that is defined principally 'by its attachment to an empiri a1 area. The study of cr.imeg:ives unity and order to the enterprise, not adherence tt a:l1y particular- theory or social science, it is In the

o lOLOGICAL T.H -ORI!! OF CRIME

75

examination of crime th t ps hologi ts, tatisticians, lawyers, econ rni ts, social anlhropol gist, ociologists, social policy analysts, and P"Y hiatrist meet and call themsel es criminologists, and in that encounter, their attachment to the conventions and boundaries of their parent di ciplines may weaken. 0 it i that sociological crirninologisrs have confronted arguments born and applied in other disciplines and, from time to time. they have domesticated nhem to cultivate new intellectual hybrids.

tan Cohen (1972:) and lock Young (1971) did so in the earl}' 19705 when the}' ms rried the symbolic interactionh m of Edwin Lernert (1951) and Howard Becker (J 963) to the statistical theory of Le lie Wilkins (1964). Wilkin' had argued that deviant event fall ar the pole of normal distribution cur e , that knowledge about th e events will be distorted by the ensuing ada! ill tance, and that patterns of control and deviant resp use are likely to bec me ever more. exaggerated as they are affected by those distortions. That c ncept f devianceamplification married well with interactionist ideas of secondary deviation.

Thu constituted, the development of sociological criminology is at once marked by dls nntinuitie and continuities, It may be represented as a taggered accession of interchange with different schools lind disci-plines 'which do [lot always sit well together. 1'1 is evident, fur instance, that the feminist may entertain D conception of the ry and the theorist very unlike that of the functionalist Of rati mil ch .i e theorist, Yet there are also unities 0 a kind, All competent criminologist may b presumed to ha e a rough working knowledge of the wide range of theory in their discipline; the ry nee ma tered i eldom forgotten or negle ted entirely, and there is a propen ily for s holars overtly and covertly to weave disparate idea' together as problems and needs arise. Quite typ'ical was an observation offered in the author'. introduction to a work on the lives of urban street criminal in Seattle, Washington: '[ Link ..• ethnographic datil to criminological perspectives as a bri ioteur ecking mID.l.e,rOUS sources of interpretation. Had I ele ted just one criminological perspective to C:Ofl1~ plem nt UJe e ethnographic data, th value of these fir rhand accounrs would be con trained"".' (L995: 5). h lars thus tend frequently t be more ace mmodating in practice than in principle, and if there is an ensuing gap between a profes ed purity of theory and an active pragrnati m of rocedure, it may well be rna "ked by the obliteration OfSOllI es or the renaming of ideas. Seemingly dl inct ciological theories are open to continual merging and blurring as the practical work of crirninology unfolds, and .in that process may be found opportunities for the retical innovation.

PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE

Whal is LID ertain, and what bas alwa . been uncertr in, 1& h w those criminological theories may be expected t evolve in the future. Very few would have predicted the rapid demi e of radical e rimin logy a brand of theorizing that once seemed o trong that it would sweep all before it, at lea t in large parts of Europe, Canada, and Australasia, Few would have predicted the resul'gence of utilitarian theories ofrational choice-c-rhey seemed to have been superseded forever by a so ioIogy Lhat pointed

PAUL ROCK

to the part played by social and moral contexts in the shaping of meaningand c ction.

\N"hat mayce:rtainIy be anticipated is a continuation of the emi-deradred relations bellweencrim~101ogy and it parent disciplines. and with ociology above all. The half-life of scciological theories is bri f, often bound up with Ilhe duration of intellectual gel1eration , and sociolegioal theory is i't:sel.r emergent, a compound of the Iamiller and the unfamiliar. It is to be assumed that there will always be something 11 'W OLLt of l),cioiog),] and that criminology will alma. t a1waY!i respond and innovate ia its turn.

Other matters are also clear. Pir t, criminology remains a ubstantively-defined discipline. and it tends not to detain the intellectual. stem-builders. Tho e wh would be the sociologi al ewtons, the men mid women who would explain the great clockwork of society, are of tell impatient with the limitati n impo ed by analysing the mere parts and Iragment of larger totalities, Almost an the grand theorists have made crnething of a mark on criminology. but they. o:r their disciples, have rarely stayed long, Their I oneern is with the wider systemic properties of society; Dl.')t the surface features of empirical areas, Thus the phenomenologist. Phillip: on, once remarked that • [we hould] turn away from con titutive and arbitrary judgemerr of publi . rule breaking s devie nee towards the concept of rule itself and the diale ti al tension that ruling i ,a ubject more centra] to the fundamental practice of sociology " , .' (J 974: 5), And land (Bankowski es al: 1977) and fern inist (Smart 1989) have

aid much the. arne about the relations between their theories and the sub-discipline ef criminology,

'econdly, Icriminology will probably persist in challenging economics as 3C01ltender for the title of the dismal science. Criminologists are not professicnally optimistic. AproJollged exposure to the pain nfcrirne, rate of o'ttenrlirlg that (until very recently at least, had seemed prone inexorably to rise, frequent abuse of authority, misconceived policies] and 'nothing' or very little appearing t work. eems to have fostered a propen tty amongst the larger thinker' to infu their writing with gloom and to argue, in effect, that all i really not for the best ill the best of ail po ible worlds. tan Cohen ouceconfe eel that 'most of us-e-con iousl 'or not-pr bably hold a rather bleak viev of ocial change. Things must be getting wars' (J 979: 360). Prophecies of iii criminologi al future will still he tinged at the margins "With the imnography of Mad Max, Neurornancer and made Runner.

Thirdly, there is the gro,wing Influenceof government and government moue in haping riminologicaJ work. Polk ies and politics h ve conspired to make restorative ju bee and rational choice theory, the criminolcgicai anti-theory, particularly attractive to. criminal justice agen ie .. Restorative justice is new, modest in its reach, , nd it eerns t 'wack', Rational choic and antral theories layout cries of neat, inexpensive, small-s cale, practicable, and noncnntrover ial teps that may be taken to 'do ornething' about crime. Ioreover, as the des that are lied t the apron uing of economics. they can borrow something of the powerful intellectual authority that economics wields in the social sciences,

Fourth is the pets! renee of a feminist inHuenee. Crime is dearly gendered,the intelle tual yield ofanaJysing the connections between gender and crime 1l3.'1 not yet

SO lOLOGJCAL THEORIES OF fUr.,I

77

been fully e rplored, and women are entering the b dy of sociological crimlnology in ever grea.ter number (although, to be me, me feminists, Like arol man. are also emigl'ating and e bsolute numbers remain small). Criminological fernini ms and femini r crhninologies (Gelsrhorpe and Morris 1988) will unci ubtedly SlIst<rin work on gender, control, and deviance and, increasinglj, on masculinity, After ali, if crime is l,ugely a mate preserve) criminology should ask what it is about masculinity that

eems to have such an afflltily with offending, Connell (987), not himself a criminologist, has sketched the po sibiliries of an an wer In his writing on 'hegemonic mascullnity'<-jhe overridlng ideology f male powe.r, wealth, and phy ical strengthth .. t lend it d' to expl it, risk-taking, and aggre ion. M ser chrnidr (1997 • Bourgoi, (1995), and Polk (1994) have pur ned that model of masculine beha i ur into crimin logy, Bourgoi expl rinz the work done to maintain 'respect' by ocainedealing Latin Americans on the street of New ork, and Polk de cribing how the defence of masculine conceptions of honour and (ace can precipitate homicide.

A role will continue to be played by the sociological. criminology thatertaehes importance to the ethnographic tudy of signifying practices. Symbolic interactionism and phenomenology have supplied a11 enduring reminder of the importance of reflectivity; the symbolically-mediated character of all ocial fe-dlity. and the sheer

omplexity, density; and intricacy of tb social world. And, lastly, one would h pc that rirninology will ontinu tocoutribute it \ n distinct analysi of the wider 0 tal world, an analysis that can take it bey nd the confine of a tightly-d lined nexus of relation between criminals, legi. later • lawyers, and enfor emeni agents. A criminology \ ithout a wider vision of social pro ess would be def rrned. A sociology without a conception of nile-breaking and courrol would be an add discipline indeed.

elected further reading

There i 110 ubstitute for the original works, s me of the more important of which are Howard Becker's Outsider: (1963); fohn Bralrhwaire's . rime, hamc al1d R integration (1989): Richard loward and lloyd Ohlin's Delinquency and Opportunity (l 6 ); David Matza' Delirrqlllmc),emd Drift (]964); Ian Taylor. Paul Walt 11, and Jock Young'- Tile New CrimiTlolog}, (1973); and lock 'ii. ling' The Exclusive otiety r 1999). Among the secondary texts are David Downes and Paul Rock's Understl1nrf.i1rg Del'itltlt:e (199B). and John Tierney's Criminology: Tl!eoryal1d Context (1996}.

References

J;.".lllOF, '., and Y UlJ«, J. (1\l94.), 'Gang

Beh'1VioT,LawEnfim::ement,andCommunity\'al. ues', in H. Aaron .. I ilL (ed .. ), Value; lurd PilI,!;. P"/ky. W:lshinglon DC: Broukings Insuune. I'IFkSC1" E. (1976), A Plua: (Ill till! c.:"rtll?r. Chirngo: niversity of Chi 01 go Press.

J3a.r.IJWl:l'I, J., and l!1J'f1'QMS, A. (l9](')), tlw Urt'IIII Crim;'I(lI, Lon Ian: Tavislo k.

[lANJ:PWSI{" Z. et til. (1977), 'Radical 'dmillo]ogy or Radical ri rni nologisr?', COIJJempl!ffll), rite«; l.

SAUMAN, z. 11911<)). Nladenriry tll.d tire Holocaust, Cambridge; Pl,lJr Press,

SAYAR,., f.-F., ELLIl>, .• and HIBOIl. B, (1999),

Tlu: Cmniflll'li"ZtlCiIl11 t:rJ Ih~ Sttn« in It/rico, Bl~ominb>1.on! Indiana University Press,

PAUL ROCK

BEL • U. (1992), Risk Sc1ritly. London: gc, Bncxaa, G. (1968).' irne and Punishment: AD Economic pproach', Tire /rmr'lIIf of Plllr'tical EwrJl)my, 76.

IhlcXPII, H. (1963), Olllsilll!7s, New 'York: Fret 'Press. - and Mcuu, M. (eds), (1\1\)0). SymllPli.

JllIl'rlIcriofJ mill Culluml' St,lIdics, Chlcat\0; Uni:v~r:rlly of Chicago Press.

8 EI.L, D, (l%tl). 'The Racket- Ridden Lon~tlOremen'. i n Tile End uJ Idllll/clgY, cw York: Collier, BOTTOMS, A.I!! III (1989). 'A J] le or Two Estates', in . Downes (ed.), Crime I.lIld ,I,e Cjl~I, Mil mIU;tn; Bnsingstoke,

-- and WII..F~~. P. (19961. 'Crime and Insecurity in the City', in C. Fijl1<lllt I!I al. I ... ds), Changes rrl ode!): Crime r;mll Cril/linal}[liriL~ i" .l!llr(lfc. 1,11C Hague: Kluwer,

BOIJRGOIS, ]~. (191)5), Itr S~tJrl:h II{ Rf!Sp«r, 'Cambridge; Cambridge University Prea •

.BOil, • (1971 ), DL'ViIIlJCJ;. Roo/tty and oriury,

London: Holt, Rinehart, and \"'insloll.

-- 1(983), PoWEr, Crinu: and fysrijir.nfiorI,

London: Tavistock,

Crmllt. STltlmc and mbri<lg University

BMrrHW ..... 'TE, J. (1989), jWjnt£gmJirm. Cambridge:

Pres.

13ltJJ'l'TINGHAlIh p" and BRJ\1\Il'Hil:TlA'M, P. t'19SI-2), 'Mubility, NOIOriel)', and Crime', jourllf,ll of Ilrrvimnml!11tfll :)'l1tCIII.!i, I' I( I).

CII~I,EN, P. 1198R), \~lIrr~II, Crim« flrJ(} Pri'Vurry, Milt01J Keynes; Open University Pro .

_- (19961. JigSilW; a politilai crillli,lolog)' of YUI11II uomelessness; Buckingham: Open University

Press,

CtlAMBt.lSS, W. (1·976}. 'The Stare and Criminal Law', in W. Chambliss .InJ M. Mankoff' (eds). Whosc 1.1l w. \<\'/rnt Ordrr? cw York: Wiley.

CIi'A.PMAN, D, (19ft7)rSQcilllllg}·(llJcIITli!~n!r~ol.)'pr! pf rJw Crimj,mJ. Londnm Lllvislm::k.

CJ.AI\Ii:1!, R. (992). strlltltiollill Crim~' ProVlIIllilm.

Ne w York: Harrow and Heston.

-- (1999). • 'ituallonru Prevention', paper

delivered at fnl' Cambridge Workshop on il'hlrif}nal .GrimE' P,r("'cllrio'I-Etlri~ arId ~or;ial U11f1f!X[. 101-16 October,

--,~nd COIIHl H, O. (uadared), 'Rational hoke', unpublisaed paper.

-- and -- (L985), 'Modeling !Tenders'

Decisions', ill M. Tortry and N. Morris (eds), Crime rind lWilicli, 6. Cb.icag(l: Ullil{e.r~it)l' or Chicago Pn;ss.

- and - [lOOO), 'An111yiiJlg Organized

rime', unpublished paper,

-- and EL 'or-!, M. (eds) (1 '1931, RO"li1t~ J\ctll'it}, fmd l;,niolJrll C/llJiCJ!. New Brun:w.ick: Tra nsactlnn, C'.I!u\\'bll, E. (1969), PQsJ-Prison Writings WItt Spc.u-Iws, Londnn: ClIq.1C:

ClOWAlU'I, It .• and Om.'LN. L, {k9GUj, DelilltlUello/ an(J 0ppCll1JlJlity, New Yurk: Free Press.

COREN, A. (1957), Ddi,u/tII.rm 8oJ's, Glencoe: Fcct' I Ie .

• OIlb:~, L. slid FE ON, M. (197"'. 'Social ,hang-c and rime Rate Trends', Amcrimn SIlc1u[o£iml Rel,irw, 44.

COHIl , [l. (972), 'Wol:king"CIa.% Youlh Cultures In East Landon', Working l'apt'T5 iff C,ltlrmd SHlriic$, Birmingham, 2.

'COIlIlN. S. (1'.172), FiJlk D.el'ils "lid .'.dam[ Ptmi(.5, L011tJcm; 1:'~Ia.Jhi.

-- [19791, 'The J'tmitlVl! City: .1oltlstm the Dispersal of 'ociC;u .00ural', Cmttemporory' Crises, 3 . - (I 'lS5), Vi5ions of ocill'1 Ci:mtrol. Cambridge PoIiIY·

-- (191,16), 'Crime anli pelltics: spot the differ· ence', British Journal" acio/DID', 't7.

. OU!.'4AN, A. L 1985), Utupia an Thal, London:

Riltlf)' hipman.

-- (l986~, 'Dangerous Dreams', WllItscapC DllSigll,163.

Q 'NKLt., rt (1987~), (iclldrrrlllrft Power', Cambridge; PoUty.

CORIUGAJo<, P. (1979), 'hoolirrg tire ma.<1r Srtw Kids, London: Ma millan,

COT1'F.J,l.l! LI., R. (1999). Emili' Durkhrrm; 41"" ill fI MfJr(ll Dmnain •• tanford: tanford UniwrSily IJresl>.

CUSSON, M. (19143), 'WII]' f)~lillquml;;y?' Toronto:

Uni:VCrs11 y orIbr(),nto PI:ei;s.

DAI'1.IIR. S. (1974), '\Vin~ AUcy: The Sociology of 3 Dreadful Itll1do~ure', StlooTogi1:JJl ~.Flt;jew, 22.

Di\VtIlS, N. (1,993), Dnrk HEOrt: TItc·S/rm::kirlg Trmlr abaul Hidfll!11 IIrittlirl, London: Vint3ge.

DAVLS, K. (1937), The ciology of Pro~tjl1.1tion"

Amerkrlll Sorio/r1gi(al Rtli';CII', 2,

-- (1959). 'The MyLh of Functional All'J.Jr·~ us a pecial Method in Sociology and I\.nLnfl'p I, og)", AtII~ricr." ociolo,!:;P11 R 'riaw, 24.

D·.WIS, M. (1'I92a), '1'1 yond Blad e Runner', Opell Mogazim' Pomp/lid, ew lersey,

--OIl92b). Cityo[Qllor,:;;,New York: l,I.inrogt'. DIll.JGJ.A~, M. (L9fr6). PtlI'ity nmJ nqTl'gflr, London!

Pelican.

0C10LOGI A H1EOR(ES F CRIME

79

Dowsus, D. (l9fiO), Tilt Dcliuqrlftll 011111111, London; Routledge and Kegan Paul,

-- and ROCK. P. (etls) (1979), Deviant (merprcrmio,I.<. O:o.ford: Martin RobetFSon.

--!lnd -- 099B), Um{vrslarrdjng D,)IIirm~'e, O:uord: Oxford Vni.versl:ty Press.

DUItKHE1M. E. (1952), Suicide; London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,

-- (19M). Th» Division o[lflbo.tr ill SDricry, 'ew )'()rk: Free Press.

ERIKSON. Ie (1966), H'tlJ~lfllrd Puriums, ew York: \ 'jley.

-- (l994), II New Species of Tmul>ll!, New York; urtun,

I"AIUS.lt. and DI/N1rIAM, H. (193-9). Malllal Di~Qr{I.:~ ill Urlw, ,'\m's, Chicago; University of Chicago Press,

[:hl~I.EY. M, (l99t\l, "The Dedlne of Women in the rimlnal 11"C11:e-~5·. in Crimillll/ Iustice Hi51.0r)l. 15. \i esiport, Ct: reenwood Prc~s.

-- and SlfilO " 1. (1992), 'Th eW Penology',

Crimlllulll8),.30.

f 1~~ ,1-1, ll'J ·1},riml· 011£1 Ewmltl}' Lifo.

Californiar Pine Fo~g<:_

-- and C~i\.1l 1.;:6. R.11998). Opportunity /vJakl!.5 tlie Tllief, T'olit"e Research Serle Paper, Lundun:

Home Otfice,

Fl'llllfl..L, .1. (1993), Crimt!5 oj StylB, Ilosron: Northeastern Un iversify Press,

-- and ~A. 11~f{ • C. (1195). Cultura! Crjmi,,l1/agy, Boston: Northeastern n iVL'T~~ Ly Press. fUIStIER. M. (1995), &'ggltru"d 17riL'I'I!5. MadiM;ll1.

Wisconsio: niverslty of Wi~nI}Rin Press.

FOUCAUl:l, M. (1977), Disriplilrc Ulld I'rmis/l, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

GELSTJlURI'£, L.and 'joRR1S.A (19881, 'Feminism und rirI11nolog)' jn Brimrn'. Brirish lOlml<II or W';miIlU/lIgy, 28.

GllNN. H. (IJJ!j3), 'MUltiple Vicrimisatitln'. in l\L lugulre orr"! I. Pnlnti Ilg (eds), Ifir.:titm oj rime: (I Nvw Veld? MUtun Keynes: Open Univen iry Pr.:.~~.

GWl)1l • A, (J971), ftml1! Durkheim: e/~lcd

Wn(illgs. mbridger Cambridge Ulliver'sity

Pr .. ss.

-- (lfJQ1), Modcmit)' Ql'Ill I:Y·ltlemity, Cambri"'j;le: Poli [)' Press,

Gll.L. O. (1977). Luk»: SIY<!~t: Housing. PlllIq'. Crm}lkr IlIl,i Ifll! CrellliLlTi of/fre DeI/IIIJUfflt MatJ, London:

Macmillan,

CoLI' KM .... N, M, (1955). Tl1~ Judic;all'm,·,t'';'" .'\1II,11l1g

thr i1arot5tJ of Nilrr/l 'rr( r.:ftlldt·5io, Manchester. Manchester niversity PI·~'SS.

GOPFMAN, E. (I96 ), ,1\$:Y/U/IIs, Hnrmoudsworth:

Penguin.

G(;)R,D 1I. C. [ed.] (1972). l'Qfl'crIK"owledge.

Brightoa: Harvester PrC\lfi.

GO.RDON, D. {1 9S6c.:7j', "l'he Blectronic Panopticon'; /'blilies /1.111 Selcier". J 5.

Gr),rTr.nlWSON. l., and H.lR 'Cril, ,(J990). A Genl!r111 Theo1J' fit C";me, Stanford, Cali [; l'llnfllrd University Pres

IiAGAN. 1. er ol. ([979J. 'The • exual tratificaticn of . udal Control', Rritish Journal of ·'ld('do.~I, 30.

-- (l985), 'The lass Structure of nder and

Delinquency: Toward a Power-Control Tbeory of Common Delinquent Behnvicr', )llII.:riam formwl ofSociI1J~g)'. 90.

-- (1968), Slr'lIclllrnl Cr/ruirrolo.I!>', C.1Iubridgc:

Pollty Pres .

F JA ,111'1. J. and M CAR'rH,{. n, ( l'l98). Mt'rw meets:

I't>utll Crime ,urd Homc/essltl:ss, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

H.\U. ,er al. (1':178), PIl/icillg (I,C ri~,~, london: lacmillan,

Hn.r.tan, W. (1973). "In Defence or PdCi:', RIRA jewrlJ(lJ. November.

-- n 986). 'City of Alice's Dreams', Arcillwrruf[' II1IIrtlIll, 9,

IIHm;m, T. r~(69), Tit!! Cunse« oj Delinqul!llq'; Berkeley; UniversilyofCalifoTl1ia Press,

HIllS'!", P. (1':175), 'Marx: and Engels on Law, Crim.~ and "'lora'lity". III I. 'rayJer ct al. (eds), riticai Cril7li.w/ugy. London: Routledge and Kegan Pall!.

Ho I'LIi, E. (1963), ' il81c Hom eKmtlil', in N.

Farbcrow (ed.j, 11,bDl;! TfIPlf5; New York:

Preru ice-J:i"U.

HOI·f., T. 1191.'12) •. Burglar}, ill Sc/Irlv/s. Lunden; Home Office.

H~jU(;H, M .• and MAYHhW, P. rl\l83), Tile British Crime Survey, London: HMSO.

IN ["-R.01, J (ed.] (1980). RJlriical C;irnIIlCJlogJ'~ the Cflllli}'g rises; B~vcrl)' Hill: age,

JACOllS, J. ([965), 7111! DHlu" mul L1ft of Grea:

AI1I.<1ricorr Cities. H. rmendsworth; Penguin. jtlN·Illi. T. 1:1 01. (T 986). '1'1,(' TSUlIgUIII Crim~ !lllley.

Aldershot: Gower.

KMI,I\.N, [~. (11)94). 'The Coming Anarch.'. TIle tlrllllllic Mrmlhly, Pebruary,

KATZ. r. (NSS), Set/rlc/fIJlIS of CrUI1~t NI!I Ynrk~ Basi Books.

80

PAUL RO K.

-- (1997), 'EdlIlOg~p'by' WllrrOIlI$" I)cl'o/Dgica1 M 'til ods (Ifill RI;!SCtl relh -!5: 4.

KrrrR.1 , N. (1911), TT,!'· R;gill to Ii( Diff~nmt, Baltimore: rOMS Hopkins Pre s.

KGR,l'IIlAI1~!i~. R. (1978'), Social CJUTCas of Delin</'J61IQ': . .11'1 AppriJisul vI J'.IIriJ~l/i, Modl1ls; hi~(I:

Umversity ofCb.:kll'go I'r~sq.

KUM",R, R (1993), TIll) ITis/r.>f)lIf/DuirJi[, New De.LItL Kali lur Women.

I I'lI)IlSt:<), 1. (rep. 1908\ Ol'J(tmizea Crmu' It!

Cf,ic(lgo, Chicago: University of Chi ago Press.

L. A, J., and Y".oUNG, r. (1984), What IS 10 be Done abou; Law and On/ed, London' Penguin !looks ..

LeMaR-:r. E. (195l), Sm:!I)/ P<lII,oTogy, ~w York:

Me .row-HiD,

LlANOS, M., with DQlw·I .... ', M. (2000), 'Dangerisalion lind the End of Deviance: th e fnstftutronnl Euvlronrneut', British ""mllli of C"imilln/Og}', • pring, 40: 2,

L.LP\VECLVN, K., and [WEDEL, A. (l9.U), TJI~ Clrf')remll! Way. Co1Jf/iCl IIIIlI C'S Leino in Primitive 1urisprurlen(e, Norman; Universiry ()j' Oklahoma Press,

LUCKFNllrl.L, D., and l3ijS'r, I. t L981), • areers in deviance and n:ll!pl!crabllity',. acini Prubl<11t15, 29.

LUK".ES, S. (1967), 'Alienation and Anomie', in P. tasleu and W. Runciman (ed~ l. PhillJ.up/zy; Polit;c5 mid acicJ.,V, O:uord: Ilhwkw.:l1.

L\'IilN, D. (1994-), Til E/",cm:m; eye, Cambridgll; l~(.ili t Y Press,

MARTIN, ON, R. (1974). '\o\IhOl Work5? uestions

and Answers dbolU 1'l!Ilru Reform', P,rlJiic J"rereSl, 35.

MAI'Ix. G. 0988). rJm~~r I'llr, Betkel , .. ll'ntversily

of Cullfomia PCe.s5.

MATHIIiSF.N, T. (1974), T'lle Poliries of Abo/irum, londo.re· farlin Robertsen.

1\.1J\'I·ZA;, D. (1964), Delimit/ell,>, omi Drift. N~'W ~rork~ Wiky.

-- 0'.969), B~cC/mjllg n~vil1m, New lel~'lC)'; l'teplic:e--1iIuiIL.

MAHlE.W, P. 111 "L (l97&), Crimp LI 0pp0l'lm,il'y, London: Horne Office.

McRoIIBfE, A .• and GAllBIlIl, J. (197fi),' irb and ubcultures', in '. Hall and' , lciTe!'l;Qll (eds), Resistanc« rlmmgb. RirUlti, 'London: Hutchinson.

MEAD, G. fl918). 'The Psychology of Punitive [usiice', t\mel'iclm fuul'II~1I olSCI io!ogy.l3.

- (19.34), Mind Scif flufi Socil;tJl, hieago;

nivusll'y orChkago Press.

MIiR'I'OtoJ,. R. (~938), 'St1Iciid Stru ure and Anomie', /I"~TI"ll(r .~tIl:-illlalliGal nl"'il'w, 3.

-- (11l~7). 'ocial TlwJl'}, ami ocip/ lruC(ure, ,ie-ncoe!: free Pres s.

-- (l 95), 'Opportunity Structure; The Emergence. Diffusion and Dlllerentiarlon of a Stltll.ll!'I!lICilJ Coo,epl. 1930s~l950i. in . Adl.er and W.[.., urer ( eds), nit! ll~ga0' fit lll/OlIlil' 17l1wrvj New Brunswi It: Transaction.

Mns.SEllSCilMIDT, J. (191J7), rune <IS SrfllC1Jlred

.l\;ijofl: Ge"llllel; Rae», Clas« 111111 Q-irne in lin' Mllkillg, Thou. .. and Oak ,Cal.: age.

Mrw..s, . \ 194U),' ituared Actions and VlX<'llmlaries l,r ,lotive', Americal1 Sodololknl RCl'iCl'\ 5-.

MORIUs-. T. (1'J5f1), 'file Criminal.o\ml, London:

Routledge and Kegan Paul.

NEWllUTtN, T., and 'r"NKO, E.. (ed:s) t1994J, /lLfl Bays Daing B."sillllS.f; Atruc'Jii(liry rlT1d Crrme, London: Rcutledgc,

NBWMAN,. 0.( 1(71). DcJell5ilile Sp:are~ People mrd Des:ign ill Ihe Virl'I~'11 City, London: ArChhecI[II'3! Press,

OlUUS, C.. and ARMSTIIONG, . r 1 '199), 'till'

Maximllm urveillaua: OCiCIY, Oxford: Berg.

0' liIou..ry, 1', (] 992), 'fU.k. power and crim c pre· venrion', &ollCimy ami Socil!ty. Augu:.l 199_,2l.

PARK, R. (1915), 'The CIty: uggestions for the InvC$1igalion of Human Deh.tvior in the City En" lrorsmear', Arnuncull jl'lJInlllJ of ociaIOg)\ 21l.

-- (1915], ·Community·Orpruiz.a1imfl nnd [uvenIle Delinquency', In R, Park and R. Burgess (005/. Tire iry. hkago: University ",rChlcago Press, PAR$ON~, T. (['lSI), The • udul JI$U!rrt, London:

Routledge and Kegan Paul.

PEARCE-. E (1976), Crimes ofrhe Powcrfltt. London:

Pluto.

pJ-lLLIJ.p ON, M. (1974), 'Thinking Out of Deviance', unpublished pllper.

POlK, K- (,199 ), Wltelll Mdl1 KJ14 Cllmbridgc.:

Cambridge University Press,

IJ'lI-~K'''' N. (1%7), l iustlar« li!!lll'S alli/ Orllllrs, Chicago: AIrline.

QUINl'lbY, R, (1970), Tile Sod/Ii Il1'!l~lil)' nf Crime, BOllton, Ma~s: Little Browu.

]{h' 'W~T~R, L. (19·70), Behind G/II!Ud lValls. hicago: Aldin",

RE(·KLFSS. W. (1933), ViC<' in (,;llIcago. ,hicago; Un"'eJsity 'Of Chicago Press,

Rl'.A:I<:T .. ss, W. atilt. (1<)57), 'The Guod Boy In a High D.dinql,1cn~1' ;l.r.m', Jrmmni of Criminlll L(lII', C,·jmillvIClgy. llllCI ,P('o/ke Sr:itTlt'c, 48.

Relllill\N, I. (1990), Ttll' Rkl. Gt;t Rir.llf~r Ilud rll~ Poor Gel PrfSOll, New Ymk: Macmillan,

SKORT, [., lind Sl'iN'IUO OK, and Gang- DcliJlqlWlUjI, ChiCAgo PI'e!I!o.

SIII!IDN, ,_ (1987), 'TIl.C Emergence ur a. Risk 'oOCly', Sociaj;;;t RIII'lel~'_

10 0 ,I AI;. 1'H ORl! OF CRtME

Ro 'UK, D_. and l\L\mR. P. (l!f';ll), 'Bars, Blocks, and rimes Revisit.:d: Linking the Theory uf Rouiine A!::livLties 10 the Empiricism of "1:101 pots'", CriPIJinolllg)\ 29.

.RQ~1t1l'.lt 09911. Obje(tillily., Rc1llliltislII, and 7'r.u,II, Cambridge CUn1bridge UlliVl![sity Press.

S "lIlflr~, T (1966), Beilll~ Jl.uJIIllllly Ill, Londnn:

WdJrnMd and Nicolson,

. CIiUR, E. (1963). Nom/tic t\ddicrillfl it, Britain and

,tIllErirn. ndon: Tavistock.

SCOIT, M .• and LYMAJII, S_ (1970) •. AC';(IUnl5, Deviance and ocial mer', in J. Douglas (ed.}, /Jevirmcc utn! R':Sp~ClllbililJ\ New York: Basi Books.

S OTT. R. ( 1972.), 'A Proposed Fr4.m~work for Anal')"ling DeviJI1~c as a Property or Soclal O.rder', In R. SC(llt nnd I. Douglns (eds), Th!!(/tL'Ircal 1>t'r5pI'ni ves 071 DCI'IlIIJce, New York: BlI.$i Books.

SC;(rI"l'IIiH ENTllAl. RUSI!..,,-ItCil UNIT (1 'il99), 'The

Effecl of Closed Circuit 1elcyisioIl en Recorded Crime Rare and Public Concern about Cdme in G~gcJ\'/, Edinburgh: The couish Office,

CRATON. P (ed.) ( 191m, 1.aw, Orrler; urlll Ihl!

AJlI'lIlril(lrilln SIUlu: Readings in CritiCtlI Crimin~/t)gy, Milt n Keynes: Open University Prc,%.

CULL, . (1979], Museums af Mlld!ll!ss: lire Social ()rgall~~/hlll of fmmriiy .1/1 Nineleellrh-amwry EIIgltllld, New York: Aili::n U!~1~.

~~ II'I.I!, T, (1993), Bcnthom': Prison: II SIIIIi), r)r~l!a

PlwlJpli,OIJ PCllirertlitJr}', Oxford: larendon

Prt'ss.

,HAPLANJ), J., and VAGG, J. (J1I8R), P(./iri"g by the Public, x ord; Clarendon P!"I$!i.

HAW. c., and McK,w, H. (942), [uvenil« Delinquency 0/1(1 UJ'!?GII Arctl.>, Chicago: Uni ersiry of Chiu SCI Prlls •

-- (11)71), '!\) a Ie luvenile Delinquency and Group Behavior', in J. Short (ed.), Th« Social Fubrir Ilf rile Mlrlropalis, Chkago, UliJversiry of Ch iC3g0 Press.

• H '\'II,ING, C, and 'tru-.'NlNG, P. (L965). 'Prom t'he Punopticon to Disney World: The Development of Dl ciplinc', in A. Ol,.lnb and E. Gr .. enspan teds), Perspectives in Criminal Lmv, Aurora:

Ca nada 1.:8\" Book.

• H RM.A, , L et al. t 19891. 'Hot put.'; of Predatory

rime; Routine Activities and the imirrology

of Plnce', Crimilwlqgy.27.

Bon1, ., and Drrro». J. n(98), 'Seen and Now Heard: Talking co the T'lrS.'1:!; of Open Street eerv', /:Iritislr /orrn,a/ ojCl'mlllr%gy. JS: J.

, (1967J, Gro.llp Proass h icago: njvcr~ity of

-- ([993)" Poor DI5I:ipli1U!: {,,,rule qrul ,Ii!!' S(l~i(ll COlltrol vi "If U/JrJeITirl~s. Chicago: University of ~icago Press,

-- and F.I!F.LEV. M. (1995), 'True Crime: The New Pen0logl' and Public Discourse on rime', ill T. Blomberg Bud S, ohen [eels], Punishruem and So in} COlrJrnT, N~\ York: Aldine de Gruyter,

SMART, . t1977" WONICII, rime and rimilloiog}" L<II1Jon: Routledge and KCgilll Paul,

-- (J989). Femimsm mrd tile Power of l..tIW, London: Roinledge,

S~II'rJ1, D. (2000), 'Changing Situations and Changiug. People', 111 A, VOI1 Hirsh, D. Garland, and A. \'VlIkdicld (eds), Etlrical arId Soarli PUI'SPI1Ctll'1!$ om SiJrltlli(lrrtll Crime Pre1'cntioll, [·17-71. Oxford: Han Publi~bing.

ST H 'S, I. ll976). I [tilers. L05t''' mId Lovers, . cattle: University ofWasilingloll Press.

STINCFlCOMlIh, A. ( (':168), ('.,Q/J$tr!. tillJi 50"io1 Theories. New York: Harcourt Brace and World,

SUTI'lERLAD, E" and Cltb. S~Y, D. (1955) • .PrillcipleJ (1f Criminology. Chicago: Lippincou.

·urn..es, G. (1972), Tlr~ 50 ;i'l/ Cou~tfll(filJrI or CITl1/mlmitl"~' Chieago: University of Chicago Press,

Y\;ES. G., and M 1"21\, D. 0957), "Iechniques of Neutralization', American rJci{)/ogicnL RBllifW, 22

T"VWR, 1. (I999), rime In (Al1Iext: A Critico!

Cl'imilJology Ilf M"rJw Societies, Cambridge:

Polity &~SS.

T"rroJl,l.. \lIIALION. E. and ¥uUJ>lG. j. (1973). The New CrimiIllJII)g)', London: Routledge and K~gan Pout

TI-ll!.to.SH.ElI, I:, (1927), Till! c..7aIlg. Chicago:

Universit y or eh icngo l'ress,

Tr.ERN , J. (J 9%), Crml irro/llgy; TIr.,ory aud ontcxt,l"'Jldon; Prentice-Hall.

TUl!.Nll u; C. (1973). Tilt, Morlllt(litJ People, London- Palad in.

V AN REVlOUI, M. I T991). 'l7n! Ttnnsfarmatian 0/

Wrlr, Ne\ .. York: Free Press.

WHYTE., \\: 09~!2l, SrrWI orn~r u j~I}', hicago; University of hic.1to Pms.

WllK1Ii(S, L. (1964), Sr1cil1/ Dm';tu.,fI.'. London:

Taviste k,

82

Yl\JJl.m'Sl{Y L. (1962), Til.; Viol/WI GaNg, London; Pelican,

YOUNG. " ( 1971 ). TIle DtIlgtakt!F>, London:

Paladin,

-- (1997). "Left Realist Crhujnolagy', in M.

M:lguil~e 6/ III. [6ds], Tite Oll:ford HnrJlJbook of Cri,nim;logy, 2.1110 0011, ll:fnrd: Oxfiml t.rnilfl!n.it~' Press.

-- (1998), 'From mclusive to exclusive sociery: nightmares in th European Dream', in V. Ruggiero et af, (eds~, Th« New Eumpean Crimiflo/l1gj. London: Routledge,

-- 11 '199). The E:<:dw.II't'Society, Loud I: ,3gtl-

PAUL ROCK

V u.us, P.(1977), Learning ttl l,tlbtlUf, F;lrnbor ugh, Han :G wer,

, U '01'1. I-I. (1980), 'Parental upervisien: A eglected Aspect of Delinquency', Brir isll lournai of Crirnil101(Jg,~ 20.

Wrr.sol'of. W. (1996), INllel, \,I~rk Di.<ttpp~(I~ TIll! Wllrld of rhr. New Url!lIrI Pi;lor., Ne\ Y(1rk; I\lfred Knopf.

W1R'rH, L, (L964), 'Culture Conflict and Mi~cnndu t', in 011 Cities mId ocia! Liju. -hlr:agQ:

University of Chicago Press,

WRlGFl'f. R.t and De{:l,'Ylt, ,( 1997). Armed RoM} 1'5 iu Action; tickups and Strce: eU/flll:"!!. Bostor» Nortbea tern Un.iv~ ity Press,

Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon St, Oxford OX2 6 D P

The Moral Rights of the Author Have Been Asserted. Database right Oxford University Press (maker). All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press at the address above.