Again, for my non-sociologically minded readers, this may be a little slow. I promise I will switch things up on Monday!
In contrast to yesterday’s post about Kai Erikson, today we
focus on another social construction perspective on crime, but this time
derived from a conflict perspective. Today, we consider Richard Quinney a
Marxist Criminologist, emphasizing his conflict approach. To help put this into
perspective, Quinney States: “the criminal justice movement is…a state-initiated
and state-supported effort to rationalize mechanisms of social control. The larger purpose is to secure a capitalist
order that is in grave crisis, likely in its final stage of development”
(Class, State, and Crime – Quinney). It becomes relatively obvious why Quinney
was considered the American spokesperson for “Radical Criminology”, used synonymously
for Marxist Criminology.
Quinney’s major work on deviance, The Social Reality of
Crime, defined six major propositions of crime:
1.
(Definition of crime) Crime is a definition of
human conduct that is created by authorized agents in a politically organized
society.
2.
(Formulation of criminal definitions) Criminal
definitions describe behaviors that conflict with the interest of the segments
of society that have the power to shape political policy.
3.
(Application of criminal definitions) Criminal
definitions are applied by the segments of society that have the power to shape
the enforcement and administration of criminal law.
4.
(Development of behavior patterns in relation to
criminal definitions) Behavior patterns are structured in segmentally organized
society in relation to criminal definitions, and within this context persons
engage in actions that have relative probabilities of being defined as
criminal.
5.
(Construction of criminal concepts) Conceptions
of crime are constructed and diffused in the segments of society by various
means of communication.
6.
(The social reality of crime) The social reality
of crime is constructed by the formulation and application of criminal
definitions, the development and behavior patterns related to criminal
definitions, and the conception of criminal conceptions.
If it helps to relate Quinney to a more popular criminological
theory, he viewed crime as the product of reaction, much like labeling theory.
I believe Frank P. Williams III and Marilyn D. McShane put it quite nicely in
their 5th edition of Criminological Theory: “The reaction of most
importance, though, is that of the legitimate authorities. These authorities
not only act to behavior but also impose definitions of the types of behavior
that can be defined as criminal. They do so by using political power to create
and place into criminal law those behaviors to which they object. Those in
lower-class positions are more likely to engage in objectionable behavior and,
indeed, learn such behaviors from those around them” (P. 132). Again, we see
the fusion of conflict theory with a constructionist perspective.
Again, to reiterate, crime is a reactionary product, defined
in criminal law, and created through political power. The next idea laid out by
Quinney is that criminal and non-criminal definitions are spread through the
media. *Cough Cough* Chomsky *Cough Cough* Manufacturing Consent *Cough Cough*.
Essentially, the media constructs our social reality and by spreading the ideas
of what is naturally criminal or non-criminal, we tend not to feel that crime
is constructed for us. For example, we watch television programs plastered with
alcohol advertisements and can flip to the news and witness the outcry against
drunken drivers and drug-related crime. This is a perfect example of the media
defining what is criminal and non-criminal, and society overlooking the fact
that that definition was created for us and spread through the media.
LH
Test...
ReplyDeletetest rfarley
DeleteRichard Quinney, a conflict theorist, is most provocative and interesting. Conflict theorists provide an unique analysis of society. They have failed to provide,however, empirical data for their concerns about power and capitalism. Nonetheless, Quinney presents a compelling argument. He owes a huge debt to Marx, Engels, Bonger,Dahrendorf,and Vold. Much of his writings are similar to Turk,Spitzer,Chambliss,and Young. Later writings of Reiman, Leighton,and Donald Black show Quinney's influence.
ReplyDeleteChallenging E.Sutherland, Quinney asserts that one does learn "criminal" behavior. One simply learns behavior -criminal/noncriminal actions precisely the same way. There is nothing inherently different.People with power define the criminality of an act. Crime becomes a definition of the powerful segments of society. They exercise this defining process to protect the status quo. Their definitions do not represent a pluristic view but are used to give a false sense of security and maintain social control. Lower-class folk have little choice but to comply and accept the "false consciousness".
Secondly, Quinney challenges the Wolfgang perspective. Richard Quinney does not believe there is a simple"subculture of violence" but believes American society breeds criminogenic conditions for crime to florish. In a sense, Quinney is establishing the American "culture(not subculture) of violence". It is false for one to assert that lower-class people are the only class members to commit crime or violence. The "isms" and legalized violence(police, wardens, generals,corporations) assist in providing examples for a violent or criminogenic society. The lower class is brutalized and held accountable for all the criminal deeds of a society-i.e. scapegoat. Much like Mills he believes the uneven distribution of power lies at the epicenter of this unfair defining. While those in positions of authority assert neutality ,in actuality, become allies of the powerful. Thus one can see mass incarceration of the poor and little effort to define the harmful acts of the powerful as criminal. This misapplication insures continued criminogenic conditions. Crime is not an individual pathology but originates from the power arrangements seen in the social structure.----A very interesting argument.
I was introduced to Richard Quinney's work( The Social Reality of Crime} in the fall of 1971 by Phil Jackson of East Tennessee State University. To insure Quinney's presence, I own three copies.