Читать книгу The Invisible Woman - Joanne Belknap - Страница 46

In the late 1960s in the United States and early 1970s in Britain, a more radical perspective entered the ring of criminological theories (Naffine, 1996). Conflict theory is grounded in Marxism and thus often referred to as Marxist theory or radical theory. Although Karl Marx himself wrote very little about crime, his perspective on class struggle and on social relations under capitalism are the basis for conflict/Marxist/radical and critical criminology theory (CCT). Just as Marx’s focus was on class and the means of production, but not on gender/women or race, we will see that has sadly been the legacy of CCT. Conflict/Marxist/radical and critical criminology (CCT) theories typically embrace a more structural, political, and economical perspective than the theories discussed in Chapter 2, proposing that rather than looking at the offender, we should focus on society, particularly law-makers and powerful interests. This approach assumes that laws are biased, reflecting the needs of the upper class, and thus enforcement of these laws is inevitably unjust. To these conflict/Marxist/radical and critical criminologists, then, crime itself is politicized and defined by the powerful elite. Therefore, the key to solving the crime problem is changing the economic system (Bonger, 1969), which is highly political.

The conflict/Marxist/radical perspective on criminology was crystallized and even renamed the “new criminology” and “critical criminology” with the publication of I. Taylor, Walton, and Young’s books of the same names (The New Criminology [1973] and Critical Criminology [1975]). Other criminologists have also helped develop this perspective (e.g., D. M. Gordon, 1973; Platt, 1974; Quinney, 1972, 1975; Schwendinger & Schwendinger, 1970). The new criminologists viewed society as two-tiered—with harmful wealthy capitalist men beyond the arm of the law, and working-class men offenders who should be regarded as “resistors” to the “real criminals” (the capitalists) and thus should be viewed with appreciation and sympathy (Naffine, 1996, p. 44). Common criticisms of the new criminology were that it was overly simplistic and generalizing (Leonard, 1982, p. 161).

The new criminologists were also roundly criticized by feminist criminologists for ignoring women, girls, and gender (Heidensohn, 1985; Howe, 1994; D. Klein & Kress, 1976; Leonard, 1982; Allison Morris, 1987; Naffine, 1996). One example was their failure to recognize that economic factors alone cannot explain gender differences in criminal behavior; they require a political analysis as well (Leonard, 1982). In a refreshing departure from the numerous accounts of critical criminology that fail to address the “woman question,” in 1976 Klein and Kress (1976) wrote an insightful article discussing how the status of women and sexist oppression were relevant to radical criminology. Other Marxist-feminist accounts state that because sexism is directly tied to capitalism, sexism governs the economic, social, and legal aspects of our lives (J. W. Messerschmidt, 1988; Rafter & Natalizia, 1981). Most feminist criticisms of CCT are from the view of offending; however, Naffine (1996) points out that the new criminologists either outright overlooked rape and intimate partner abuse or documented them uncritically (p. 45). A book on radical criminology published in the late 1989 devoted only five pages to women and gender (M. J. Lynch & Groves, 1989). Both CCT and cultural theory offer great collaboration with feminist theory, and it is hoped that CCT and cultural criminology theory will do this more regularly (see K. J. Cook, 2016). On an encouraging note, some more recent evaluations state that radical criminologists are finally “getting it” regarding their history of ignoring gender and feminism (see Britton, 2000; DeKeseredy, 1996). Chapter 14 includes transformative critical feminist criminology as proposed by leading feminist criminology scholars Chesney-Lind and Morash (2013).