It seems prudent to us to begin this chapter with a brief discussion of neoliberalism while not ignoring the fact that it is embedded within the capitalistic state. In other words, one should be cognizant that neoliberalism is still capitalism, which has always fostered inequality, harms and violence. Often the term neoliberalism, while widely used, is ambiguous or unclear in its usage or it is defined most stringently as an economic theory or economic policy. Another widely utilized definition is that neoliberalism is a policy model âthat transfers control of economic factors to the private sector from the public sectorâ (Kenton, 2018). Or it is believed to be nothing more than laissez-faire economic liberalism and the value of free market competition. David Harvey (2016) suggests that neoliberalism is a political project
carried out by the corporate capitalist class as they felt intensely threatened both politically and economically towards the end of the 1960s into the 1970s. It was an ideological assault but also an economic assault ⊠[and] the corporate capitalist class put it into motion bit by bit.
While we agree that neoliberalism is a political ideology, we do not think it can be attributed solely to the corporate class. Indeed, the process of âneoliberalizationâ includes the deepening âpenetration of capitalism into political and social institutions as well as cultural consciousness itselfâ (Thompson, 2005, p. 23). Neoliberalism is the âelevation of capitalism, into an ethic, a set of political imperatives, and a cultural logicâ (Thompson, 2005, p. 23).
Here we draw heavily from Kotskoâs conceptualization of neoliberalism, where it can be thought of as taking the form of theology. It serves to let us know about our world and how it should be, and we, the believers, accept this as true, obvious and without question. As brilliantly put forth by Kotsko in his 2018 volume titled Neoliberalismâs Demons, âneoliberal ideology [is] a form of theologyâit is a discourse that aims to reshape the worldâ (p. 7). He states that neoliberalismâs âattempt at self-legitimationâ is done through the concept of freedomâdefined in âdeeply individualistic terms that render market competition the highest actualization of human libertyâ (p. 10). In this sense, it seems to us to be fruitful to think of neoliberalism as a theology that legitimates itself with the promise of economic freedom. Neoliberalism is politics and economy, it is an ideology, or âtheologyâ, that shapes and reshapes our world, including the most banal everyday aspects one can think of. We agree with Kotsko, it is more than merely capitalism or a capitalistic state. Neoliberalism is an impelling force that engulfs all of society, repackaging its subjects to its action through commodification including its harms, violence and inequalities: thus legitimating itself at the same time. Simply, the violence and harms of neoliberalism are reproduced and legitimated through the relationships of everyday life, consumption and commodification. To wit, the system continues in the production and reproduction of itself, its systemic violence and crimes. âNeoliberalism is, in sum, a totalizing world order, an integral self-reinforcing system of political theologyâ (Kotsko, 2018, p. 95). As such, neoliberalism includes the corrosive consumer culture that we participate inâwhere people bowed and prayed to the neon gods (neoliberalism and consumption) they made. Before laying out our guiding theme and structure of this book, we first turn our attention to the issues of crime, criminological scholarship and the relational approach of this book.
Crime versus harm?
It can be safely asserted that the term crime has had quite diverse meanings throughout the long history of its use, although some understandings of crime have been dominant and others more marginal. Certainly, there is a long and enduring history of invoking the term âcrimeâ without any attempt to define it. For many people the meaning of the term crime is taken to be obvious, so much so that there is no need to define it. Following this assertion then, United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Potter Stewartâs celebrated observation about pornography (and obscenity)ââI know it when I see itââalso applies to crime (Slade, 2000, p. 4). It also seems reasonable to claim that the term crime is most widely equated with conventional criminal offenses, or violations of the criminal law that are exemplified by the FBIâs âindexâ crimes: murder; rape; assault; robbery; burglary; auto theft; larceny; and arson. This is surely the type of crime of most concern to the American public, along with drug-related offenses and recent concerns about terrorism, and these offenses account for most of the âmass imprisonmentâ of the recent era (Abramsky, 2007). The largest proportion of criminological scholarship through the present period encompasses one or more of these types of crime. But it is also indisputably true that there is a long tradition critical of the limitations of a conventional conception of crime. Accordingly, the claim is made that much of the focus of mainstream criminologists is seriously skewed. A recent anthologyâMary Bosworth and Carolyn Hoyleâs (2011) What is Criminology?ârecognizes that there are vastly different conceptions of what criminology is and ought to be, and consequently how crime is best defined.
There is a long-standing tradition of critiquing conventional conceptions of crime that have been advanced by self-described radical or critical criminologists. Examples include, but are not limited to, the widely cited âhumanisticâ definition of crime put forth by Schwendinger and Schwendinger (1970). Stuart Henry and Mark Lanier (2001), in an in-depth consideration of the definition of crime, have advanced a âprism of crimeâ definition. In addition, the last decade has seen an increasing movement toward the study of social harm as a means of deepening or âgoing beyondâ more traditional understandings of crime. Others have expanded on this definitional approach to argue for a needs-based approach. They suggest this should be done independently of formal social controls (the legal system), and should include harms such as lack of access to food, shelter and clothing, and the denial of the right to realize full human potentialâthus challenging traditional conceptualizations of crime. Other notable challenges to the definition of crime, include Hillyard, Pantazis, Tombs and Gordonâs (2004) book, Beyond Criminology: Taking Harm Seriously, which argued for an alternative lens on crime and deviance that abandons criminology in favor of âzemiologyââdefined as the study of social harm.
However, despite the continued focus of some critical criminologists on broadening the definition of crime, there remains significant neglect within the field more broadly on the topic of social harm. Specifically, there are numerous structural harms that have fallen outside the scope of the field of criminology, such as poverty, contagious diseases, malnutrition, famine and more that should be reincorporated. Pemberton (2007) argues that this results from the limitation of the field to âintentional harmâ rather than the broader and more inclusive notion of âpreventable harmâ (p. 29). In 2015, Pemberton advocated using a language of social harm as the systemic compromising of human flourishing. It is this that we have adopted here in our effort to move beyond âintentionalâ harms and include the violence and harms, and their reproductions in our everyday life, and the mundane banality of consumption and neoliberalism.
To us, using a social harm frame is potent and transformative, as âsome of the most significant problems facing contemporary society not only lie beyond the present scope of legal prohibition but are thoroughly normalized and integral to the functioning of liberal capitalist political economyâ (Raymen, 2018, p. 1) including âthe corrosive consumer culture that generates significant harmâ, crime and violence. After all, the worst of harms are entrenched in our broader sociopolitical and economic systems that structure society. They allow criminologists to move beyond harms, violence and crimes of actual physical violence to include symbolic violence, embodied violence and more banal forms. We believe the social ills of todayâs society, and how they are a normalization of and produced through neoliberalism, are indeed social harm and crimes. As such, for us, these terms are interchangeable. In addition, using crime to frame harm and violence has the symbolic effect of calling them what they areâhow we suggest they should be seen, interpreted and discussedâas this removes the political sanitization of the harms and violence. In this sense, we do not want to limit ourselves to only the most âvisible and obvious forms of social harmâ or dismiss âgenuine harmful processes and practices as merely mildly injurious, or only discuss them as ethical dilemmas or âsocial harmâ when the harmful processes generate sufficiently extreme and problematic outcomesâ (Raymen, 2018, p. 2).
Our guiding theme and structure of the book
Our goal with this volume is to unmask the banal forms of violence and harm that are a routine part of life that usurp, commodify and consume, to reify the existing status quo of harm and inequality. Much of what we draw on may seem âobviously soâ, though we believe a reminder of what is going on within our everyday choices (though we think we have choices) is necessary given our âbusynessâ. We are hopeful, however, that some readers may see this volume with a shock of recognition of the hidden obviousness of it all. Likewise, we do not want readers to see our efforts here as yet another example of someone throwing the âculture of blameworthiness torchâ that already penetrates our hyper-individualized lives under neoliberalism. Nor are we laying out some sort of âmoral entrapmentâ where everything is and continues because of our choices. That would be naĂŻve at best. Rather we, as citizens, perpetuate the inequalities and violence of the system through consumerism and the willing consumption of hegemonic ideology or neoliberal theology as we have no alternativeâit is our prison and our forced participation. In this sense, we are active agents in reproducing the hegemonic ideology and system where the violence becomes the abnormal âcelebrated normalityâ.
The consistent theoretical frames guiding each chapter are grounded in, but not limited to, Gramsci, Neocleous, Baudrillard, Foucault and Simmel, including their work on hegemony, governmentality, power, consumption and social identity. As such, the subsequent chapters are focused on routine forms of inequality, violence and harm that are celebrated, commoditized and consumed in our everyday lives, including, but not limited to, state violence, patriarchy, hypermasculinity, death, sports, entertainment, nongovernmental and not-for-profit organizations, efforts of resistance and more banal forms of everyday oppression that are masked within the broader neoliberal cultural (re)production. After all, the commodification of violence, inequality and harm are present every day, and have come to be seen as a âfact of lifeâ that ânicely captures the dominant social meaning of banal goodsâ (Goold, Loader & Thumala, 2013, p. 978). Furthermore, this violence and harm is systemic, inherent in the social conditions of neoliberalism and the symbolic violence embodied in language and its forms, which, in turn, naturalize the systemic violence (ĆœiĆŸek, 2008). We agree with Young (1976) in his Foreword to Frankâs Pearceâs book, Crimes of the Powerful: Marxism, Crime and Deviance, when he argues that it is âthe system itself that must be investigatedâ (p. 11).
Our goal is to provide a radical critique of our own disavowal, knowingly or unwittingly, of our complicity in more banal and normalized forms: consumption and consent through neoliberal commodification. Again, this is not fostering more blameworthiness hegemony. Rather, it is to allow us to reflect on the totality of neoliberalism and our everyday life. In other words, our goal is âunveiling the neon godâ and recognizing our role in the perpetuation of the harms, violence and crimes of neoliberalism that prevents us from seeing beyond the box of hegemony and hegemonic discourse that serve to ensure our domination by consent. This violence and harm then becomes banal, disavowed, depoliticized and normalized through cultural hegemony and hegemonic discourse (Neocleous, 2008, pp. 73â74).
We begin with Chapter 2 where we examine the intersection between neoliberalism and capital acquisition as it manifests itself in global markets. We acknowledge that the âglobalâ is touted as being beneficial to the average citizen, especially as it relates to the ease with which they can now access specific services and goods, cross borders and promote economic success through the laissez-faire policies that promote competitiveness, free trade and lower prices for consumers. However, we emphasize what is often ignored and is the focus here, the harms and the violence, or what Renner (2002) has termed the âinvisible imprint of violenceâ (p. 53) that results from a common everyday purchase. The global markets that facilitate the ease in which goods and services are consumed are divorced from the violent oppressions and inequalities that go into their production. This is especially so in Global North countries where materialism and capital acquisition have become part of everyday life, normalized and even celebr...