Like an unfit mother, I have neglected this poor blog sooo much over the last twelve months! Ugh. Well, such is life in Year One of a tenure-track position. Particularly this past spring when I was teaching three classes for the first time in my life (while raising as many children!), I scarcely had time to sleep, let alone blog. I missed it terribly, though, so now that I (hopefully) have my sea legs in Year Two I plan to return to regular blogging. I've missed blogging so much!
OK, now onto the substance of my post:
I am prepping a lecture for my theory class on "feminist and radical criminologies". I can't say that I was thrilled with the book's discussion of feminist criminology (I'm using the 5th edition of Bierne & Messerschimdt's text), but I was truly puzzled by their lengthy coverage of cultural criminology. Let's put it this way: it doesn't do much for the ol' Imposter Syndrome to have never, ever heard the term "edgework" before reading it in my undergraduate theory textbook today (e.g., see here and here).
Based solely on the text's summary of cultural criminology, I have to say I'm unimpressed with the perspective. (And it appears I'm not the only one.) Take this passage, for example:
In this [cultural criminological] view mainstream criminology is irrelevant, boring, lifeless, and navel-gazing...[Proponents] complain generally about the enforced need for young academics, driven by considerations of tenure and job security, to write numerous grant applications to undertake more and more quantitative research on matters of less and less significance... (p. 217).I can't see this as anything but a big, giant (not to mention inaccurate) generalization. It's one thing to critically evaluate the tenure system, as many have done (see a recent discussion on The Daily Dish, or this recent Chronicle commentary). It is quite another to suggest that all criminologists or sociologists are (a) hampered by pursuing grant-funded research; (b) slavish devotees of quantitative analysis; and/or (c) constricted to irrelevant research interests by unbearable tenure pressures. Really, though, this is just my gut reaction as I do not know enough about the paradigm to make an informed evaluation of it. (Not that that stopped me from writing this post!)
So tell me, GBOCers: Do you see merit in the key propositions of cultural criminology? Are you familiar with "edgework," making me the lone rube of the bunch? I'm curious to hear others' thoughts, particularly in advance of my lecture on this topic next week...
Posts
1 comments:
Hi - you raise an important issue for further debate.
I think you really need to have a look at Jock Young's chapter on Voodoo Criminology and The Numbers Game. The main arguments are that (in the UK - and in the USA) empirical criminologists have become for want of a better word Positivists. Young shows how weaknesses in official crime survey data compound one on the other - and thereby are of less worth than many believe.
Those pursuing pseudo-social science tend to ignore or pay scant attention to criticisms that prove exceptions to their hypothesis and promote those that support it. Young’s arguments for the usefulness of Cultural Criminology and the limitations of “Administrative Criminology” should not be ignored if we are to progress with the criminological endeavour.
Here is a link to Young’s chapter: http://www.culturalcriminology.org/papers/chap1-jock-young.pdf
Let’s discuss some more once you’ve read it.
Dr Society
Post a Comment