Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Analysis based on sorting and classifying humanity into distinct 'races', and that these racial differences explained cultural, political, ...
Typology: Study notes
1 / 12
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
11
CONTENTS
Introduction 2
The Social Construction of ‘Race’ 3
The Social Construction of ‘Crime’ 6
Race and Crime: a Critical Engagement 8
Structure of the Book 9
Summary 11
Study Questions 12
Further Reading 12
2 RACE & CRIME
This chapter provides:
v critical consideration of the ways in which ‘race’ and ‘crime’ are socially con- structed concepts that have no inherent ontological validity and so do not exist as ‘natural’ phenomena with independent properties; v an outline of the nature of the ‘critical engagement’ between ‘race’ and ‘crime’ that forms the central theme of this book; v an overview of the structure and chapters of the book.
■ (^) Crime ■ (^) Scientific racism ■ (^) Criminalization ■ (^) Sociological approaches to ‘race’ ■ (^) Race ■ (^) Racialization
Introduction
So pervasive and long-standing are the associations between ‘race’ and ‘crime’ that it might seem unnecessary to begin by critically examining the fundamen- tal terms and concepts that form the backbone of the book. It has become axi- omatic that issues of ‘race’ are central to the criminological cannon. Unquantifiable intellectual effort and research grant expenditure has been focused over many decades and across many societies in a vast array of studies that have sought to measure associations between ‘race’ and ‘crime’ in terms of patterns of offending, experiences of victimization, treatment by the criminal justice system and the impact and status that these have had in terms of social and political debates and media representation. A reasonable working definition of criminology is that it is a discipline concerned with the study of crime and social responses to crime (Mannheim, 1965): as the rest of this book demon- strates, debates relating to ‘race’ have been recurrent themes in relation to both of these dimensions of the discipline of criminology since it emerged in the nineteenth century. The relationship between ‘race’ and ‘crime’ is a near ubiq- uitous feature of undergraduate and postgraduate degree programmes in crimi- nology and criminal justice in many parts of the world. Official statistics relating to ‘race’ and ‘crime’ are collated, analyzed and debated in many societies. Even in those countries that do not provide apparently authoritative profiles of the
4 RACE & CRIME
conquests and colonizations ... those groups of races heretofore compre- hended under the generic term Caucasian, have in all ages been the rulers; and it requires no prophet’s eye to see that they are destined eventually to conquer and hold every foot of the globe ... the superior races ought to be kept free from all adulterations, otherwise the world will retrograde, instead of advancing, in civilization.
Racial traits and typologies, discoverable through the application of scien- tific methods, formed a framework for explaining the human condition – this was reflected in early criminological studies of delinquency and offenders that also sought to identify biological bases for criminality, as is shown in Chapter Two. In relation to both ‘race’ and ‘crime’, the biological scientific certainties sought by scholars in the mid-nineteenth century were gradually eroded as anthropological, cultural and sociological perspectives focused instead on the social contexts in which the concepts developed. In relation to the notion of ‘race’, sociological approaches developed from the early twenti- eth century and concentrated on the social circumstances in which racial attributes came to assume significance. In the aftermath of the Second World War, UNESCO commissioned biologists and sociologists to study the scientific basis of the concept of race. Extended deliberations by panels of experts con- cluded that ‘race’ had no biological basis in the terms envisaged a century earlier during the zenith of scientific racism (Rex, 1970). The UNESCO stud- ies arrived at a definition of ‘race’ that significantly departed from nineteenth- century racist orthodoxy, concluding that ‘for all practical social purposes “race” is not so much a biological phenomenon as a social myth’ (Montagu, 1972, cited in Malik, 1996: 15). Rex (1970: 3–4) outlined six key findings of the UNESCO study in relation to the biological status of ‘race’: (i) that human populations represent a continuum and that the genetic diversity within groups is as great as that between them; (ii) that observable human character- istics are the result of biology and environment rather than inheritance; (iii) the various characteristics grouped together as racial and said to be transmit- ted en bloc are in fact transmitted individually; (iv) human beings belong to a single species and are derived from common stock; (v) although different human groups may be loosely referred to as ‘races’, it is not justifiable to attribute cultural characteristics to genetic inheritance; (vi) human evolution has been greatly affected by migration and cultural evolution and the capacity to advance is shared by all homo sapiens. After this period, sociological perspectives on race eclipsed biological and genetic approaches. As has been noted, ‘race’ became a social phenomenon worthy of study not because it had any inherent status in genetic or bio- logical terms but because human beings so often acted upon the basis that it was meaningful: a concept real not in itself but in its consequences. This raises a fundamental problem that recurs throughout this book and is
returned to in more detail in the final chapter; namely, the need to ‘take race seriously’ as a social phenomenon while at the same time not affording it spurious credibility or reinforcing its legitimacy. In Britain, the sociology of race relations often focused on social, economic and political relation- ships between white communities and the first generations of migrants from the Caribbean, who arrived in the ‘mother country’ during a period of labour shortages and post-war reconstruction. Studies such as those by Banton (1959), Glass (1960), and Rex and Moore (1967) examined conflicts and tensions between host and migrant communities in relation to competi- tion for employment, housing, and various social and cultural issues. Crucially, in contrast to earlier approaches, the concept of race is not under- stood to be an independent causal factor such that social conflicts of these kinds are a result of innate, inevitable, determining characteristics of ‘racial’ types. Theoretically, sociological approaches to race relations focused on debates about the extent to which the concept of race was a form of ‘status’ in Weberian terms, acted to increase social solidarity in Durkheimian tradi- tions, or represented ‘false consciousness’ that distracted from the funda- mental dynamics of class struggle, as Marxist perspectives might suggest (Rex, 1986). However, critics of these sociological approaches argue that by taking race seriously as a concept ‘real in its consequences’, such studies replicate dominant racist assumptions and fail to challenge structural and ideological relations of power that marginalize and criminalize oppressed communities. Miles (1989, 1993) offered a strong critique of the sociology of race relations on the grounds that they continue to grant the concept analytical validity, albeit in terms other than biology and genetics. For Miles, ‘race’ is an ideo- logical construction that is intimately bound up in structural and economic foundations of capitalist society. Retaining ‘race’, even if understood in sociological terms, affords the concept a status it does not warrant and is a barrier to the development of progressive political action. On this basis, the focus ought instead to be on the ways in which the idea of ‘race’ is con- structed in particular social and ideological contexts. Small (1994: 34) devel- ops this perspective by arguing that the key challenge is not to explore the realities of race, but instead to consider processes of racialization that make the concept a powerful determinant of social relations. Small argues that (1994: 34):
When we examine the process of ‘racialisation’ we find that our beliefs about ‘races’ and ‘race relations’ have more to do with the attitudes, actions, motiva- tions and interests of powerful groups in society; and less to do with the char- acteristics, attitudes and actions of those who are defined as belonging to ‘inferior’ races … we must also acknowledge that definitions, ideas and images once begun can vary and endure in ways that are complex.
high priority on news agendas, political parties promise ever ‘tougher’ sanc- tions, and citizens consume infotainment shows, movies and computer games that offer thrilling opportunities to enjoy crime vicariously. For all that crime is easy to recognize in contemporary mass-mediated society, it remains diffi- cult to define. A traditional approach to defining crime adopts a legalistic framework: crime is that category of activity that is subject to the criminal law. Clearly this circular definition – a crime is a crime because the law defines it so – has some merit. In applied terms it provides an operational framework that shapes the actions of the agencies of the criminal justice sys- tem. As much of the criminological literature has noted over many decades though, it is an unsatisfactory basis for understanding crime for a number of reasons. In the 1930s, Michael and Adler (1933, cited in Muncie, 1996: 8) noted that a logical consequence of the ‘black letter law’ definition of crime is that no action can be considered criminal unless it is proscribed by the law, which means that the criminal law is the formal cause of crime. Relatedly, no individual can be considered to have committed a crime unless they have been apprehended, prosecuted and convicted by the criminal justice system (Muncie, 1996: 8). That the scope of the law varies across time and between different societies directs attention to the social, economic, political and cultural context against which certain actions come to be defined as criminal. Reiner (2007: 21–43) suggests that the construction of certain actions or behaviour as ‘criminal’ can be understood in five dimensions:
v the legal, representing the contingent outcome of centuries of legislation and case-law, united by the formal characteristics of criminal process, not the substan- tive nature of the multifarious behaviours subject to prosecution; v moral views about whatshould be punished, varying between different cultures; v socially/culturally sanctioned behaviour, stigmatized in everyday practice; v the criminal justice system labelled pattern of offences and offenders; v mass media/public policy representations, following a ‘law of opposites’ focusing on the rarest cases of homicide, violence and sex crimes.
While some actions and behaviour might be understood as criminal in terms of any and all of the dimensions identified by Reiner, others might not. Two examples that are examined at greater length later in this book illustrate the partial and differential ways in which activities come to be identified as crim- inal. The practice of lynching, a form of racist violence prevalent in the United States from the mid-nineteenth to mid-twentieth centuries, was clearly prohib- ited in legal and moral terms but, as is shown at greater length in Chapter Five, often was not sanctioned socially or culturally, or in sections of the mass media. Similarly, environmental damage that disproportionally harms margin- alized ethnic groups in some developing societies might constitute a breach of international human rights law but has often not been addressed by criminal
8 RACE & CRIME
justice systems. Moreover, the practices of multinational corporations and governments that contribute to environmental degradation have tended not to be identified as a form of crime in mass media or public policy debate. The status of such problems as criminal practices is discussed in more detail in Chapter Six. Although an emphasis on social processes of criminalization is preferred, it does not follow that crime is understood only as a category created through labelling and stigmatization. The concept of crime cannot be conceptualized in terms isolated from the spatial and temporal context in which it develops, but it contains an essential reality in terms of the harm and damage wrought. Reiner (2007) suggests that for all that crime needs to be understood along the five dimensions identified above, it retains a central characteristic related to the notion of ‘trespass’: the physical intrusion into a property or person. While the attention of criminology and criminal justice might be dispropor- tionally focused on forms of trespass associated with the disadvantaged and the powerless and only rarely notice those forms of state and corporate crime that pose the most significant threat to humanity, the crimes of the powerful can also be considered as forms of trespass. The need to focus critical attention on such crimes is a core theme returned to at various points in the discussion that follows.
Race and Crime: a Critical Engagement
Although ‘race’ and ‘crime’ have come to form a natural association, rein- forced by research, policy and political agendas, a central theme of this book is that these two core concepts ought to be understood in terms of a ‘critical engagement’. Although that phrase forms a sub-title of the text, it is intended as the fundamental basis for the discussion and analysis that follows. The critical engagement between ‘race’ and ‘crime’ is considered along two dimen- sions. First, the analysis presented in the chapters that follow demonstrates the diverse and enduring ways in which the concepts of race and crime have been conjoined and mutually reinforcing. ‘Race’ has come to be seen as a sig- nificant independent variable that informs much contemporary debate about ‘crime’ in the context of urban society, for example. As Keith (1993) has argued, the racialization of contemporary debates about crime mirrors ways in which ‘racial’ identities have become increasingly constructed in terms of crime and disorder. The social construction of ‘race’ has continued in close relation to parallel processes of criminalization, in that they are mutually ref- erential and conceptually co-dependent. The two concepts have been critically engaged for many decades, in various contexts and in diverse societies.
10 RACE & CRIME
representation in the criminal justice system and the extent to which this is linked to socio-economic, geographic and demographic factors and to institutional and system bias – arguments considered in greater detail in Chapter Seven. Chapter Five considers evidence developed from victimization surveys, indi- cating that many minority communities are more likely to experience ‘general’ crime than other groups. The extent to which victimization rates are associated with wider processes of social marginalization are considered. The chapter continues with a review of the nature and prevalence of racist crime and con- siders reasons why often it has not been effectively investigated or prosecuted. Debates about the hate crime legislation, considered in terms of ethics and efficacy, are considered as part of a broader critique of efforts to strengthen the response to racist victimization. Chapter Six begins by establishing that, globally, some of the most serious criminal episodes of the modern era have been closely linked with processes of racial and ethnic conflict. Slavery, racial segregation in the USA, apartheid in South Africa, the Holocaust, the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Bosnian Muslims in the 1990s, and the genocide in Rwanda are among the most familiar episodes in contemporary world history and have involved death and injury on a scale far beyond most other criminal activity. Despite this scope and profile, such events have received little attention in the criminological literature. This chap- ter considers why this might be, and the implications that this has for recon- ceptualizing the discipline of criminology. Disproportionality in the criminal justice system is analyzed in Chapter Seven. Minority ethnic groups are treated disproportionately, in comparison to the population in general, at every stage of the criminal justice system: from the ‘entry’ point of police stop and search and arrest, through the courts system, and to ‘disposals’ in the form of prisons and offender management services. Although some explanations of these patterns regard it as an inevitable conse- quence of disproportionate offending patterns outlined in Chapter Four, the chapter suggests that claims of discrimination and racism remain convincing even though establishing the ways in which they intervene at particular points of the system remains problematic. Chapter Eight critically explores diversity and representation among the personnel of the criminal justice system. The ‘normative whiteness’ of criminal justice systems in many jurisdictions, closely associated with the under-representation of minority ethnic groups in the workforce, has been widely associated with the disproportionality discussed in the previous chap- ter. Chapter Eight considers why minority ethnic groups have been under- represented in criminal justice agencies, the impact of efforts to increase recruitment, and the impact that such strategies might have on institutional performance. Other efforts to promote diversity, for example, through training, community engagement and the promotion of ethical and professional stand- ards, are critically reviewed.
Chapter Nine outlines ways in which racial, ethnic and religious differences have provided a powerful framework for understanding and responding to con- temporary terrorism. Much of the military, security and law enforcement response to terrorism reflects wider processes of racialization and criminalization. Technologies and strategies of security management have consequences in terms of the fear of crime and have developed iteratively with racialized social relations. This chapter explores what Garland (2001) described as the ‘criminology of the other’, and concludes by critically assessing arguments that Muslim people have come to form a ‘suspect community’ in the twenty-first century. The book ends with a chapter that summarizes the key debates and reiter- ates that race and crime debates have been closely intertwined since criminol- ogy emerged in the mid-nineteenth century. While biological and genetic determinism of the crude reductionist types associated with early ‘race think- ing’ and explanations of criminal behaviour have become less influential, the two concepts continue to engage in uneasy dialogue. The conclusion questions whether contemporary criminological focus on ‘race’ – in the form of ethnic monitoring, for example – affords spurious legitimacy to a concept that is fun- damentally flawed and ought not to be granted ‘master status’ with explana- tory power. It is argued that the critical engagement between race and crime ought to be challenged, but that greater attention should be paid to the com- bined impact of racism, racialization and criminalization.
The chapter has shown that the concepts at the heart of this book – race and crime – are both socially constructed. As such they have no core objective con- tent that can be understood outside the social context in which the terms are used. In the nineteenth century, scientific approaches to race, and crime, sought to establish an empirical biological basis on which human beings could be cat- egorized into distinct racial groups. Often, it has been shown, these groups were organized hierarchically in ways that reflected broader relationships of domina- tion and subordination relating to European imperialism. Scientific approaches to race during that period suggested that biological genetic characteristics explained the different stages of development of distinct human groups. The scientific basis of race has been discredited, partially due to a comprehensive study by biologists and sociologists completed on behalf of UNESCO. Socio- logical perspectives focused instead on the social, economic, political and cul- tural circumstances in which ‘race relations’ developed. While these approaches recognized that ‘race’ was not an objective scientific fact but one that was an important object of enquiry, since it informed social practices and relations,
(Continued)
