Toward a Unified Criminology

Integrating Assumptions about Crime, People and Society

Robert Agnew

• Publisher: NYU Press
• Year: 2011
• ISBN:
  9780814705278
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

Why do people commit crimes? How do we control crime? The theories that criminologists use to answer these questions are built on a number of underlying assumptions, including those about the nature of crime, free will, human nature, and society. These assumptions have a fundamental impact on criminology: they largely determine what criminologists study, the causes they examine, the control strategies they recommend, and how they test their theories and evaluate crime-control strategies. In Toward a Unified Criminology, noted criminologist Robert Agnew provides a critical examination of these assumptions, drawing on a range of research and perspectives to argue that these assumptions are too restrictive, unduly limiting the types of "crime" that are explored, the causes that are considered, and the methods of data collection and analysis that are employed. As such, they undermine our ability to explain and control crime. Agnew then proposes an alternative set of assumptions, drawing heavily on both mainstream and critical theories of criminology, with the goal of laying the foundation for a unified criminology that is better able to explain a broader range of crimes.

1
A Divided Criminology

Most criminologists would agree that there are too many theories in criminology. All of the standard theories have been around for at least twenty-five years.… In addition, new theories appear on the scene with astonishing frequency.... Most criminologists would agree that the abundance of theories does not enrich the field but impedes scientific progress.... Theory is supposed to direct research and to accumulate its product into a coherent, understandable framework.... The failure to accomplish this is one reason why criminology research has tended toward a million little modest studies.

—Bernard and Snipes, “Theoretical
Integration in Criminology”

Introduction

This book is about the underlying assumptions that criminologists make about the nature of crime, people, society, and reality. I describe the assumptions that different groups of criminologists make in each of these areas, noting that they are often opposed. For example, some criminologists assume that people are naturally self-interested; others that they are socially concerned; and still others that they are “blank slates,” shaped by their social environment. This opposition makes it impossible to integrate the different approaches in criminology or develop a unified criminology. I draw on recent work from several disciplines to suggest an alternative set of underlying assumptions. These alternative assumptions incorporate the essential insights from a range of approaches in criminology and so lay the foundation for a unified criminology that can more fully explain a broader range of crimes. I begin this book, however, with a brief overview of the divisions in criminology, the problems that these divisions create, and the assumptions that I will examine.

A Divided Criminology

Criminology is a divided discipline. The most prominent division is between “mainstream” and “critical” criminologists, who tend to focus on different types of crime, employ different explanations for these crimes, test their explanations using different methods, and make different recommendations for controlling crime. Mainstream criminologists focus on acts that are in violation of the criminal law, particularly individual acts of violence, theft, and drug use. Such acts are partly explained by individual characteristics, such as low self-control and beliefs favorable to crime. And they are partly explained by characteristics of the individual’s immediate environment, such as poor parental supervision, negative school experiences, delinquent peer association, and residence in disorganized communities. These ideas are usually tested by conducting surveys, with the survey data being analyzed using sophisticated statistical techniques. Such analyses control for race/ethnicity, sex, and class; but there is often little consideration of how these factors shape life experiences and outcomes. Based on such analyses, mainstream criminologists recommend that crime be controlled by rehabilitating offenders, preventing crime among at-risk individuals and, in some cases, punishing criminals in a more effective manner.

There are many versions of critical criminology, including Marxist, feminist, critical race, left-realist, constructionist, and postmodernist approaches (see DeKeseredy, 2011; Einstadter and Henry, 2006; MacLean and Milovanovic, 1997 for overviews). These approaches differ from one another in important ways, but they also share much in common. Critical criminologists focus on a much broader range of “crimes” than mainstream criminologists, including many acts that are not in violation of the criminal law. These acts are frequently committed by organizations, especially corporations and states. And they are explained in terms of larger social forces, particularly the efforts of certain groups to maintain their privileged position, oppressing others in the process (e.g., the oppression of workers by capitalists). Variables such as race/ethnicity, gender, and class play a central role in such explanations; they define the larger social conflicts that result in crime. Survey research is seldom employed to test critical theories; it is felt that the brief responses provided in surveys cannot adequately capture the complex forces that result in crime. Rather, critical criminologists rely on techniques such as historical and comparative analysis, observation, and intensive interviews. Based on their analyses, they recommend that crime be controlled by altering the larger social environment in ways that reduce oppression.

To be sure, some mainstream criminologists are sympathetic to critical criminology and have been influenced by it. For example, some mainstream researchers do not limit their focus to individual acts of theft and violence, but study topics such as corporate crime (e.g., see Simpson and Weisburd, 2010). Many have become more sensitive to the critical role that gender, race/ethnicity, and class play in explaining crime (e.g., Steffensmeier and Allan, 1996; Unnever et al., 2009). And many have supplemented their statistical analyses of survey data with more qualitative approaches, such as the analysis of observational and interview data (e.g., Giordano et al., 2002; Sampson and Laub, 1993). Likewise, some critical criminologists have been influenced by mainstream research. For example, some argue that it is important to examine the individual acts of violence and theft that dominate mainstream research (e.g., Young and Matthews, 1992). Some make use of survey research (e.g., Barkan, 2009; DeKeseredy, 2011). And while critical criminologists focus on larger social forces, many recognize that such forces affect crime partly through their impact on the social-psychological factors examined by mainstream researchers (e.g., Colvin, 2000; Currie, 1997, 1998).

Nevertheless, there remains a large gulf between mainstream and critical criminology. Most mainstream criminologists ignore the contributions of critical criminologists (see Rafter, 2010). And some mainstream criminologists go so far as to reject critical criminology as unscientific (see Chambliss, 1989). They claim that critical criminologists let their values influence their definition of crime, fail to follow the scientific method when studying crime, and make policy recommendations based on their political agendas (e.g., Akers and Sellers, 2008; Toby, 1979). At the same time, critical criminologists claim that mainstream criminology is misguided, serving the interests of the state and major power holders. In particular, they argue that mainstream criminologists let the state define their subject matter, overlook the larger social forces that cause crime, and—despite their claims of scientific neutrality—conduct analyses and make policy recommendations that reinforce existing social arrangements. Ferrell et al. (2008, 204) express the views of many critical criminologists when they state that “mainstream criminology is an abject failure” (also see Chambliss, 1989; DeKeseredy, 2011; Lynch and Michalowski, 2006; Social Justice, 1999)

As a result, there appears to be little prospect for the integration of mainstream and critical approaches. And mainstream and critical criminologists often work in largely separate worlds (see Chambliss, 1989; Pemberton, 2007; Rafter, 2010). Mainstream criminologists dominate the field; their work fills the leading criminology journals and texts, is regularly taught in college courses, and is frequently supported by government grants. Critical criminologists occupy a marginal place in the discipline, particularly in the United States. Their work tends to be published in a few second-tier journals (in the eyes of mainstream criminologists), is sporadically taught in college classes, and is rarely supported by government grants. Further, mainstream criminologists dominate the leading professional organizations, such as the American Society of Criminology (ASC). Critical criminologists belong to these organizations, occasionally occupying leadership positions in them, but they generally present their work in separate sessions and participate in separate subgroups, such as the Division of Critical Criminology of the ASC. As DeKeseredy (2011, 15) states, “to this day, many American critical criminologists experience hostility, academic isolation, and marginalization.”

The division that characterizes criminology, however, is not limited to that between mainstream and critical criminology. There are also deep divisions within mainstream criminology. Perhaps the major division is between those who focus on the motivation for crime and those who focus on the controls against crime.¹ Strain, social learning, and certain other theorists argue that individuals will not engage in crime unless they are strongly motivated to do so. They therefore focus on those factors that pressure individuals into crime, such as strains or stressors, or on those factors that entice individuals into crime, such as anticipated rewards. Certain control, deterrence, and classical theorists, however, argue that all individuals are strongly motivated to engage in crime. They therefore focus on those factors that restrain individuals from engaging in crime, such as self– and social controls.

Likewise, there are deep divisions within critical criminology. For example, the different approaches within critical criminology focus on different causes; some assume that class conflict is the primary cause of crime, others give primacy to gender conflict, and still others to race and ethnic conflict. Critical criminologists also employ different methods. Some attempt to objectively describe the manner in which one group oppresses another. Others argue that such objective description is impossible, and they instead examine the subjective views of different groups, particularly those views that are seldom heard by others. This strategy is said to foster a deeper understanding of crime, contribute to a reduction in oppressive practices, and promote a more humane response to crime (see Arrigo, 2006; Einstadter and Henry, 2006; Henry and Lanier, 2006).

Still other divisions can be described, but the central point is clear: there are a variety of criminologies that differ from one another in fundamental ways. As a final demonstration of this point, consider the survey that Cooper and associates (2010) conducted in 2007. Members of the American Society of Criminology were asked the following question: “Overall, which theory do you consider the most viable with respect to explaining variations in serious and persistent criminal behavior.” Only about half of the respondents listed a theory, with twenty-four theories being listed. And the top-ranked theory was selected by only 13 percent of the respondents.

There have been several attempts to develop integrated theories of crime that bridge certain of the divisions in criminology, particularly the divisions between mainstream theories.² I am the author of one such attempt at integration (Agnew, 2005). None of these integrations has attracted a significant following, however. This stems at least partly from the fact that these integrations ignore certain prominent theories and perspectives. Also, some claim that these integrations violate the core assumptions of certain of the theories they do consider (see Hirschi, 1969; Messner et al., 1989). So despite the earnest efforts of some, criminology remains a divided discipline.

This book is motivated by the belief that this division has hurt the field and the larger society. As Bernard and Snipes suggest in the quote at the start of this chapter, this division undermines efforts to develop a “coherent, understandable framework” for the analysis of crime. And the absence of such a framework likely explains why criminologists are unable to explain most of the variation in the crime (Weisburd and Piquero, 2008). This division prevents criminologists from agreeing on recommendations for controlling crime. As an example, the American Society of Criminology, unlike many other professional organizations, generally avoids making policy recommendations. They have tried doing so in the past, but stopped because of the discord that it provoked. Relatedly, this division leads criminologists to speak in many voices, reducing the likelihood they will be heard by policymakers and others.

As I suggest in the chapters that follow, an integrated or unified criminology has the potential to overcome these problems. I believe that each of the major theories and perspectives has something of value to offer to the study of crime. This should come as no surprise: each theory and perspective reflects the work of talented criminologists who have studied crime for many years. It would be surprising if these theories and perspectives did not capture something of value regarding crime. Combining the key insights of these theories and perspectives should therefore allow us to better explain and control crime. Unfortunately, the construction of such a unified criminology is not easily accomplished.

The Roots of Division:
The Underlying Assumptions of the Different Criminologies

The divisions that characterize criminology have deep roots. They are based on the different assumptions that theories and perspectives make about the nature of crime, people, society, and reality. Before there can be any hope for a unified criminology, these assumptions must be confronted and the differences between them resolved. Only then will there be a sufficient foundation to build the type of unified criminology capable of attracting wide support and advancing the study of crime. The underlying assumptions on which the different criminologies are based are briefly described below, with these assumptions organized into five areas. I state the assumptions in pure form, which facilitates their description, comparisons between them, and the evaluation of them. I recognize, however, that many criminologists do not fully embrace certain of the “purified” assumptions I list. I elaborate on this point in the chapters that follow. At the same time, I believe that most criminologists favor one or the other of the assumptions listed in the five areas. Further, these assumptions are reflected in their work, as described below:

A. The Definition of crime. Mainstream criminologists assume that crime is best defined in terms of violations of the criminal law. Critical criminologists strongly challenge this assumption, arguing that mainstream criminologists let the state define their subject matter for them. As a result, mainstream criminologists ignore many harmful behaviors that are not in violation of the law. Critical criminologists propose several alternative definitions of crime, most of which focus on acts that are “blameworthy” and harmful, although developing precise definitions of harm and blameworthiness has been a challenge. Mainstream criminologists claim that critical criminologists draw heavily on their own values and political agendas when defining crime, undermining the scientific status of the discipline.

B. Determinism versus agency. Most mainstream criminologists assume or act as if crime is fully determined by forces beyond the individual’s control. These forces include a range of biological, psychological, and social factors. Critical criminologists and certain others place great stress on agency or the ability of people to exert some independent influence on their thoughts and behavior. These criminologists do not deny that people are influenced by a range of factors, but they claim that people are sometimes able to transcend the forces to which they are subject.

C. The nature of human nature. There is much disagreement regarding human nature among criminologists. Some argue that people are self-interested; they seek to satisfy their needs and desires in the most expedient manner, with little concern for others. Others claim that people are socially concerned; they desire close ties to others, are quick to conform, and are reluctant to harm innocent others. Still others state that people are “blank slates”; they have few natural inclinations, and are instead shaped by their social environment.

D. The nature of society. Many, perhaps most mainstream criminologists assume that society is characterized by consensus. People hold similar values, with everyone agreeing that certain behaviors are wrong and should be punished. People have compatible goals, such that goal achievement by some fosters goal achievement by others. And when people do compete, they agree on the rules of competition. Most critical criminologists, however, argue that society is characterized by conflict. The members of different groups disagree over core values, particularly which behaviors are wrong and should be punished. And groups have conflicting goals. Most notably, the members of more-privileged groups want to maintain or enhance their privileged position. The members of less-privileged groups want to improve their position. Conflict is the result, with the more-privileged groups oppressing those in less-privileged groups.

E. The nature of reality. Most mainstream criminologists and certain others believe that there is an objective reality “out there” that can be accurately measured. They focus on developing the single best measures of this reality. Many critical criminologists argue that different people hold different views of the world, and they focus on measuring these different views since they exert the major effect on behavior—including crime. In fact, some critical criminologists claim that there is no objective reality “out there,” rather there are multiple subjective realities.

These assumptions are the foundations upon which mainstream and critical theories of crime are built. They define the scope of the field; that is, the types of acts that criminologists should and should not study. Mainstream criminologists focus on violations of the criminal law, while critical criminologists consider many acts that are not technically in violation of the law. In particular, critical criminologists devote much attention to the harmful acts committed by states, corporations, and powerful actors as they seek to maintain or enhance their privileged position.

These assumptions influence the causes of crime that are examined. Most mainstream criminologists focus on those individual problems that lead people to violate the social consensus, committing acts that are widely condemned. For example, individuals are said to engage in crime because they have personality defects or were raised in dysfunctional families. Critical criminologists focus on the efforts of some groups to oppress others and on the consequences of such oppression. For example, they argue that discrimination, poverty, and inequality are at the root of much crime. These assumptions also influence the causes examined within mainstream and critical criminology. For example, control theorists focus on those factors that restrain self-interested individuals from engaging in crime. Strain theorists focus on those factors that pressure socially concerned actors to engage in crime. And social-learning theorists focus on the manner in which individuals—viewed as blank slates—learn to engage in crime.

These assumptions influence the methods that criminologists employ. Most mainstream criminologists rely on survey research and sophisticated statistical techniques to develop what they believe are the best measures of objective reality. Many critical criminologists go to great lengths to determine how individuals view the world and interact with one another. In doing so, they employ qualitative methods such as intensive interviews and field observations. Finally, these assumptions influence the crime control strategies that are recommended. Mainstream criminologists focus on correcting individual problems, altering the immediate social environment, and/or increasing social control. Critical criminologists focus on reducing group conflict and its negative consequences, such as poverty.

Clearly, the underlying assumptions made by criminologists have a fundamental impact on their work. But despite their importance, these assumptions are seldom discussed in detail, particularly by mainstream criminologists. Rather, these assumptions are part of the “taken-for-granted world” of many criminologists; regularly relied upon, but rarely examined. There are several reasons for this. Criminologists come to internalize these assumptions as socialized by their mentors and others. Further, challenging these assumptions would undermine their work and that of their colleagues. Also, mainstream criminologists would jeopardize certain of the benefits they reap from their assumptions, such as employment, government grants, and prestige in the discipline (see Henry and Lanier, 2001; Hillyard and Tombs, 2004). Finally, many of these assumptions are seen as difficult or impossible to evaluate. For example, how does one determine the “true” nature of people or whether there is an objective reality that can be accurately measured?

Critical criminologists, however, have devoted significant attention to many of these assumptions. Their marginal status in the discipline puts them under greater pressure to justify the approach they take.³ Also, a few mainstream criminologists have begun to challenge certain of these assumptions. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), for example, reject the use of legal definitions of crime and instead build their theory...