Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Copyright Information
Marxist criminology can be analyzed both as a theory of what is and as an
ideology of what ought to be. Theory must be examined by logic and empir-
ical evidence. An ideology and its vision of the good society must be exam-
ined by comparison with other ideologies and real societies based on com-
peting ideologies. Such comparisons would reveal that societies based on
Marxist ideology have been unjust and repressive and do not represent a
future for which criminologists should strive as Quinney urges them to do.
RONALD L. AKERS
University of Iowa
pressive are utopian and cannot agree that we should join in the
struggle to create a socialist society.
Second, it should be noted that I come to this disagreement
slowly and base it purely on intellectual and ideological
grounds which conflict with my personal bias. Richard
Quinney was my major professor and dissertation director, my
mentor, professional role model, and is my friend. Much of my
sociological and criminological interests were formed under
his tutelage. It is a tribute to his intellectual integrity and
educational philosophy that he inspired me to be interested in
the same problems as he, without indoctrinating me to take the
same approach with the same answers as he. Similarly, I have
known Bill Chambliss, a theorist prominently featured in the
paper by Carl Klockars, for some thirteen years. He was one of
my closest colleagues during the beginning period of my pro-
fessional career and I learned nearly as much from him as I did
from Quinney. Also, I have known Ted Turk, author of the
paper on analyzing official deviance, for fifteen years and have
had frequent professional contact ith him during that time. I
have been greatly influenced by all of these men not only by
reading what they have written (which in each case has been
influential and prolific) but also by my personal contacts with
them over the years. Each is a recognized leading figure in the
discipline, and I count each as a friend. Therefore, although my
theory and research interests and styles diverge considerably
from that taken by each of them, I start out with a bias in favor
of what he has to say.
I believe these biases have been neutralized when consider-
ing the empirical validity of theoretical assertions. The biases
remain in ideological assertions, but they, by definition, do not
allow of neutral analysis, and no apologies need to be entered
for them. Finally, I should say that however much I disagree
with Marxist criminology, I believe we should continue to hear
about it and respond to it. It is for that reason I organized and
moderated the plenary session on Marxist criminology at the
1977 American Society of Criminology meetings in Atlanta
530 CRIMINOLOGY / FEBRUARY 1979
from which come both the Turk and Quinney papers presented
here, and I welcome this special issue of Criminology and the
chance to contribute to it.
tween "is" and "ought" Quinney falls into the fallacy of assum-
ing the truth of assertions on the basis of ideological purity. If
the theory suits the development of a socialist society, it is true;
if it does not, it is false. Quinney's paper fits Klockar's descrip-
tion that "for the Marxist theorist, the object of theory is to
change history," not to be tested against history.
As most conflict theorists do, Turk tends to dismiss as irrele-
vant the now voluminous body of research findings (some of
which is cited in the Klockars paper) that there is considerable
normative consensus in society cutting across class, sex, race,
and age divisions on the undesirability and seriousness of cer-
tain criminal acts. The existence of such widespread consensus
is not a trivial finding; it runs directly counter to assertions
made by all varieties of conflict theorists. It cannot be dis-
missed and must be accepted as either disconfirming conflict
assertions or affirming some modified conflict model which
recognizes consensus on some issues.
The whole tenor of Quinney's paper is that of a mystical,
true-believing apostle. Capitalism is evil. Socialism is good.
The ideal society is a communist society. If criminologists
would just "get into" the Marxist religion, live the dialectic,
and work for a better society by participating in the class
struggle, we not only would achieve the good society but we
would no longer doubt or speculate. We know we are right and
can rest in the "relative certainty of our cause." Because of this
faith in the righteousness of his cause, Quinney does not ask
questions or search for answers; rather, he starts with conclu-
sions assumed to be true and plays out the implications of
these.
fire formula for contructing a system with all the worst features
which Quinney see in extant "capitalist" society.
Toby need not go back as far as he does to find the old senti-
mentality contained in the "new" criminology. The underdog
ideology of labelling theory has been taken on by some radical
criminologists even while being critical of labelling theory. But
I do not agree with Toby that emphasizing crime in high places
and excusing or rationalizing the crimes of lower class mem-
bers is the keystone of the "new" criminology. A much more
central assertion in Quinney's paper is that the higher levels,
indeed a single elite group, controls the lower levels of societies
and that crime and injustice are woven into the very fabric of
capitalist society. Therefore, radical criminology is not so
much the old sentimentality as it is the old structural-function-
alism. It is the most recent embodiment of the old sociological
adage that if something is wrong it is the system that needs to
be changed. The new criminology's version of this is the
capitalist system which needs structural overhaul. The "capi-
talist system" is to Marxist theory what "the unconscious" is
to Freudian theory, and what "structure" is to sociological
theory.
Toby rightly notes that there is little evidence in more recent
studies to support the notion that there is class discrimination
in the criminal justice system. This is not only contrary to
"new" criminology. The preponderance of research showing
little discrimination by social characteristics and the great
importance of legalistic variables in criminaljustice processing
has not been satisfactorily explained by any variety of new
criminology- Marxist, conflict, or labelling. However, we
should not forget that these findings also go against much of
what was taught in the "old" criminology, and indeed even
much of popular belief.
Klockars' point about objective and subjective interest is not
enhanced by his review of the changing perspective of some
leading Marxist theorists. Most recent radical or Marxist
theories have developed out of the pluralistic conflict perspec-
Akers / MARXIST CRIMINOLOGY: COMMENTS 539