Postmodernist theories

Postmodernist theories stress that society is changing so rapidly and constantly that it is marked by chaos and uncertainty, with society fragmented into a huge diversity of groups with different interests and lifestyles. Social structures have collapsed, and have been replaced by growing individualism expressed through consumer culture in which individual consumers assert choices about their lifestyles, values and the identities they wish to adopt.
The nature of crime
1. Postmodernists view the category of 'crime' as simply a social construction, based on a narrow legal definition, reflecting an outdated metanarrative of the law which does not reflect the diversity of postmodernist societies.
2. Henry and Milovanovic (1996)
  1. Suggest that crime should be taken beyond the narrow legal definitions to a wider conception of social harm, embracing all threats and risks to people pursuing increasingly diverse lifestyles and identities.
Crime as social harm
1. Henry and Milovanic suggest that crime should be reconceptualiksed not simply as breaking laws, but using power to show disrespect for others by causing them harm of some sort. They identify two forms of harm.
  1. Harms of reduction. Power is used to cause a victim to experience some immediate loss or injury.
  2. Harms of repression. Power is used to restrict future human development. This conception of harm brings a wider range of actions into the criminal net, which are not illegal or not traditionally taken seriously or perceived as part of the current crime 'problem'. These include harms threatening human dignity and respect, such as sexual harrassment, racist abuse and hate crime (crimes motivated by prejudice or hate of a group or individual).
The causes of crime
1. The individualism of identity in postmodern society means that the social causes of crime are undiscoverable. Each crime becomes a one-off event expressing whatever identity an individual chooses, and is motivated by an infinite number of individual causes, including intagible emotional reasons. For postmodernists, crime may simply be committed for the kicks derived from doing so, and the causes of crime lie in the individual, not in society.
The control of crime
1. In the postmodern view, the fragmentation of society is reflected in a similar fragmentation of more formally organised crime prevention through a publicly controlled and accountable centralised criminal justice system, like the police and the courts.
2. A growing emphasis is placed on private crime prevention and more informal localised arrangements for controlling crime. There is increasing use of informal control agencies, like private security firms that control 'public' places such as shopping complexes.
3. Contemporary societies use surveillance techniques to control everyone, not just offenders. Foucault (1991) pointed out that surveillance is penetrating more and more of our lives, aided by new surveillance technology like CCTV, which monitors the movements of people in every sphere of life.
4. People are regarded less as citizens with rights, and more as consumers and customers. They are seduces and co-opted into avoidance of social harm by participation in the consumer society. Those who aren't seduced, or can't afford to participate, face stricter controls, for example through heavier and more repressive policing.
5. Postmodern approavhes draw attention to the growing detachment of the criminal justice system from centralised control to more informal localised arrangements, as it starts to take account of people's different lifestyles and needs. For example, policing policies have become very localised and community based, reflecting the fragmentation of society into a diverse range of smaller groupings or localised identities, such as those around ethnic and gender identities.
Evaluation of postmodern approaches
1. Strengths
  1. It can explain contempory developments like widespread surveillance, for example CCTV, and consumer tracking.
  2. It recognises that there are other dimentions to the causes of crime beyond the more structural theories which have dominated the sociology of crime and deviance.
  3. It explains the growing localism attached to policing strategies.
  4. It offers explanations for non-utilitarian crime, with no material benefit, like hate crimes and anti-social behaviour.
  5. It provides a fuller picture of the patterns of crime than traditionally provided, as the conception of crime as 'harm' encompasses a range of behaviour that has been largely neglected in the law and in sociological theories.
2. Weaknesses
  1. It doesn't explain why most people don't use their power to harm others, and why particular individuals or groups find it necessary to actively engage in acts of harm as a means of asserting identity.
  2. It ignores the issues of justice and citizen rights for all, and not just for those who are significant consumers and customers.
  3. It doesn't recognise that decentralised and more informal arrangements for crime control, like the use of private security firms and localised policing, to respond to local identities are likely to benefit the most well organised and articulate groups- these are most likely to be the middle-class groups, who have the power to get their needs attended to.
  4. It fails to recognise that the consumer society, where personal identity and fulfillment are tied up with the purchase of consumer goods, can lead to resentment by those who can't afford to participate- this may generate the wish to cause harm to those who they might see harming them through social exclusion.
  5. It fails to recognise that many people still have strong conceptions of right and wrong behaviour, which underpin the law and much sociological theory of crime.

Next up

Postmodernist theories

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by hannahmcgrath199 almost 11 years ago