DEBATE ON THE AIM OF CRIMINOLOGY IN SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER

Introduction

In order to understand whether criminology can speak truth to power, it is essential to first understand the concept of truth and knowledge and these will be elaborated in detail through Foucault’s ideas. Thereafter, it is essential to look into the concept of power. However, because power can be depicted through various forms, the essay will focus on the government. An analysis of cultural criminology is also essential in understanding the question and finally, all the latter aspects will be brought together to examine whether criminology can speak truth to power.

Analysis of truth and power
A number of criminologists have looked into the issue of truth but some of the most prominent ones include Michael Foucault and Walters. Foucault finds a way of relating truth and freedom in a different light. (Hamm, 1995, pp 200) He claims that one ought not to look at truth in terms of adherence to law alone. Instead, he claims that truth is an individual concept rather than one that is tied to moral codes of any nature. In this regard, it can be asserted that moral order and ethics are different because the latter is concerned with objectivity within moral order.

According to this order, truth should not just be regarded as a characteristic that is only confined to a certain aspect of freedom; these two are disconnected. Instead, Foucault proposes that truth can be confirmed by certain levels of truth.
On the other hand, power may be defined as an individual or entity’s ability to control and influence the environment around them. Power can be seen as something that is either just or unjust; however, whatever the case may be, power is a concept that is synonymous to the human being. Many philosophers have argued that power is the measure of how human beings have been enabled to make their actions possible.
In other words, power represents the go between enablement and constraint.

Power is something that can be manifested only when examined in the form of a relationship. Power requires more than one party for manifestation. Consequently, the concept entails an in depth understanding of what the roles of other members within the social relationships really are. (Lasn, 2000, pp 56)

It should be noted that power is something that is quite relative. In certain instances, it may be stable while in others it may be unstable. Additionally, power can be understood in terms of the levels of constraint exercised by the parties within that social relationship. For power to exist, then one of the parties must be a in a position where they have chosen to constrain their respective powers.
Power can be understood in terms of a number of theories. For instance, according to feminists, women need to be given equal opportunities in the social, political and economic spheres in their lives. This equality in opportunities can only be possible when both sexes are granted power over their lives.

Another common theory that discusses matters surrounding power is the Marxist school of thought. According to these proponents, holders of capital have the ability to control and influence members of the working class consequently, this category has power. (Regis, 2003, pp 36)

In the Game theory, power is imagined to be something that individuals can either use to their advantage or their disadvantage depending on how they opt to influence others. Additionally in the rational choice theory, power is thought of as something that needs to be acquired by certain social actors so that they can achieve their goals and aspirations. (Redhead, 1993, pp 13)

In the field of criminology, power is regarded as something that can best be understood through a number of philosophers. According to Michael Foucault, power is an aspect that is exercised without enforcement; instead, it is something that causes people to behave in a certain manner through their own initiative. In other words, a sales representative who manages to convince a buyer to purchase a product willingly is exercising power because he or she has interfered with the action of another. On the other hand, this author also asserted that power is something that may be regarded as the overall nature of these respective issues without necessarily placing them in context.

Through this author’s assertions, it is possible for one to understand some of the underlying issues that cause manifestation of power. According to him, knowledge and truth were necessary in placing power within context. He believed that members of certain societies have created certain belief systems that are actually associated with right and wrong. When an individual behaves in a manner that contradicts some of these belief systems, then they oppose these power relations and may eventually them. Consequently, this philosopher argues that power should not be analysed in terms of who has it or who does not, instead, it should dwell on the issue of the subjects that are under analysis.

Given these assertions, then power can be seen through any of the following entities
-The government
-Television status
-Family
-Big business
-The police
-Judiciary
-Seat of power
-Etc

Since these are all concepts that require in depth examination, the essay shall be limited only to the government as a manifestation of power. The reason why this particular depiction of power was chosen is that it has a large sphere of influence. Additionally, many people relate it to authority and it can therefore be understood properly.

Understanding criminology
Criminology may be defined as the sociological approach towards the study of crime. In this field, crime can be treated on an individual basis also in terms of a sociological phenomenon. Criminology is one of the most diverse fields to be studied because it encompasses so many disciplines. Examples of such disciples are; law, behavioural sciences, psychology, sociology etc. Usually research in this field entails causes, consequences, forms, incidences of crimes and many others. (Wilson, 2001, pp 39)

Criminology has a series of theories and schools of thought that are established in understanding crime. For instance, there is the classical school of thought, human beings are thought of as entities that frequently seek pleasure and avoid pain. On top of these, it is also assumed that the human being tends to act in a rational manner. Consequently, to curb crime, it is important to punish those who commit it.
On the other hand, in the positivist school of thought, adherents claim that crime may be committed because of reasons that are actually beyond the control of those who commit them. For instance, criminological anthropologists assert that some people are biologically predisposed to committing crime through their physical features. Other adherents such as Marxists claim that people commit crimes because of inequitable distribution of resources that cause the oppressed to look for unconventional means of getting these resources. (Banksy, 2005, pp 209)

There are also a number of theories that have been used to understand crime and all these can be understood as ways that allow one to place crime in context. For instance, in the social disorganization theory, crime usually occurs because of deterioration of society through the existence of poverty and high levels of social disorder. These reasons propagate crime.

Another theory is the strain theory in which society places great expectations upon its members to achieve its goals and aspirations. However, society does not provide the means with which to achieve these goals and thus pushes people into crime. Other theories include the sub cultural theory, control theory, symbolic interactionism and rational choice theory.

Given all these expansive thoughts and premises, it can therefore be seen that criminology is quite a wide field. Ideas are quite diverse and an attempt to reconcile them would be an exercise in futility. The best way for dealing with this issue is by adopting one stance and analyzing the issue of truth speaking against power through this particularly approach. For purposes if this essay, greater emphasis shall be given to cultural criminology.

Cultural criminology
Cultural criminology may be defined as the study of the causative aspects of crime through the cultural lens. In this approach, culture may be viewed as a n aspect that propagates crime. On the other hand, crime may be regarded as a crime or a form of crime in its own right. (Hayden, 2004, pp 45)

Crime may be treated as something that is synonymous to a particular sub culture. Sometimes, these cultures may differ in terms of their composition or their ideologies but this does not change the fact that they do indeed represent a common behavioural pattern among a particular group. It should also be noted that certain forms of behaviour are distinct in particular cultures because of the motivations for them. Also, members of these groups may have certain attitudes, appearances and languages that make them typical of that group.

There are certain styles or levels of entities that are distinct to particular cultures. These kinds of styles are the ones that make drug users, skin heads and zoot suiters what they are. Certain criminologists assert that in order to place these matters in context, it is essential to relate criminal symbols and styles to particular groups. For instance, when one analyses bikers; they are likely to find that these individuals are fond of wearing vests, tattooing their bodies, riding motorcycles and listening to violent music. Consequently, through these materials, it is possible to understand why some criminal identities crop up. By participating in criminal subcultures, it is possible to comprehend how one finds themselves in such criminal groups. (Boyd, 2007, pp. 34)

It should also be noted that a there is usually an interrelation between political and legal authorities and criminals in the process of constructing criminal subcultures. This is because the former usually react to the latter.
In fact, this is the point at which one can assert that cultural criminology can address the question of power. Adherents to this school of thought claim that legal authorities normally create their own symbols that are made in reaction to the criminal subcultures. More often than not, it is possible to identify these reactions within society and examples here include;
• Campaigns for support from the public
• Changing legal structures
• Changing political systems
• Moral entrepreneurs
• Mass symbolism
• Educational efforts

An example of how power has been faced with the issue of crime was witnessed within the United States during the mid fifties. At that time, the US government was attempting to educate the public about the dangers of marijuana. This was in response to a subculture that had been created at that time and more often than not, it was labelled as criminal in nature. These campaigns were done despite firm opposition from various members of society. The targeted sub culture i.e. the mob zooters reacted through mass demonstrations and this was manifested in the most drastic methods possible. It should also be noted that some of these reactions can only be understood by placing the issue in context.

Cultural criminology speaking truth to power
In certain instances, some elements of culture can be perceived as crime themselves as described by cultural criminologists. Through the latter group’s assertions, it is possible to see how power can be challenged by their deductions. For instance criminology can identify examples in which the government has labelled certain expressions of culture as crime and thus gone a long way in promoting the behaviour. Through criminology, it is possible to highlight these situations and thus challenge the government which is a form of power. (Valier, 2003, p 120)

Taking the example of what had occurred in Britain during the 1970s; at that time there was a band known as the Sex Pistols that had been highly controversial. The reason behind this controversy was because of the style and image portrayed by this Punk Band. The group had been organized by the Virgin Records Company and was labelled by the government (through its representatives) of the following criminal acts;
• Anarchy
• Bondage
• Fascism
• Etc

According to local politicians, this group was a threat to the moral order of British society and as such should be dealt with severely. Most of the problems being faced by this group were actually brought on by the government because of what they perceived as ‘crimes’. In fact, the government banned any of their materials from being sold or promoted in stores. This was topped up by outlawing their performances. Consequently, when the band wanted to perform, they had to look for other ways of ensuring that this occurred by signing up under different names. The government claimed that the band was in violation of obscenity statutes in Britain and that the police should arrest their record owner.

Through all these excessive activities, it can be asserted that criminology played a part in speaking against power through the process of identifying the government’s role in labelling certain matters as criminal. Through the process of trying to protect the civil liberties of others, the government was infringing others’ rights. In certain countries, the activities of these band members would not have been labelled as criminal, however, because the government chose to react in the manner that they did, then they reinforced these new beliefs and created a different style.
The field of cultural criminology has been able to identify government faults and thus challenged this form of power through citing the latter example. This approach to criminology has not merely accepted criminals as such just because political authorities have chosen to call them that. Cultural criminology questions some of these nations and thus brings out the fact that it is possible for criminology to speak against power. (Macek, 2006, pp 67)

There are also certain illustrations that demonstrate how this matter was criminalized by the government of the day. For instance, at that time, the government was highly interested in creating a paradigm shift from some of the common perceptions. This was seen through the institution of new rules when handling problems of that nature.

It should also be noted that the government as a form of power has not just been focusing on the low end of the social stratum in criminalizing certain forms of behaviour. For instance, during the nineteen nineties in the United States, the government through the police chose to criminalize exhibitions within museums and galleries. For instance an art photographer known as Jock Sturges had been interrogated and arrested by the police under claims that he had been engaging in criminal activity. According to the authorities, the process of taking nude photographs (which had been the case with this group) had constituted a criminal offense and thus necessitated arrest. (Tierney, 2006, pp 26)

Cultural criminologists noticed this aspect and highlighted it. They claimed that through the process of attacking popular culture, the government was trying to criminalize this culture. In fact the behaviour of the government can be likened to that of the criminal neighbourhoods. In criminal areas, the situation is such that society’s elements mobilize cultural resources such as music, tattoos etc to popularize criminal culture. Similarly, the government mobilized powerful cultural resources such as art (in museums) and music (through the Punk bands) to construct morality plays in which they were the mediators. They were trying to illustrate exactly how these elements could be dealt with through their way. (Ferrell, 2001, pp 45)

Criminologists have spoken out against this criminalisation acts by the government by pointing out that the groups chosen are usually minority groups. In other words, there is always the attempt to campaign against such groups as criminals and this makes them more marginalized. The following groups have been targeted by the government and these attacks have been spoken against by cultural criminologists
• Gay visual artists
• Black raps artists
• Punk bands
• Musical production
• Latino suiters

Criminologists have thus shown that the government has a part to play in criminalization and that they should take up responsibility for it.

Conclusion
Criminology can speak out against power because of the insights that the concept manages to bring with regard to the government’s role in criminalizing behaviour. By singling out these matters, cultural criminology has illustrated just how assertive it can be. The latter phenomenon has been particularly useful in protecting the rights of targeted groups because some of these attacks spearheaded by the government have now been eliminated. Cases such as raiding art galleries or ceasing albums made by certain groups are no longer common because cultural criminologist have played their part in identifying the government’s role.

References

Banksy, T. (2005): Wall and Piece; London: Century
Boyd, C. (2007): Hooked: Drug war films in Canada, Britain and the United States; Routledge
Ferrell, J. (2001): Tearing Down the Streets - Adventures in Urban Anarchy; Palgrave
Hamm, M. (1995): American Skinheads: Control of Hate Crime and Criminology; Greenwood Press
Hayden, T. (2004): Street Wars; The New Press
Lasn, K. (2000): Culture Jam -How to Reverse America’s Suicidal Consumer Binge; Harper Collins
Macek, S. (2006): Urban Nightmares: the Media, the Moral Panic and the Right; University of Minnesota Press
Redhead, S. (1993): Rave Off: Politics and Deviance in Contemporary Youth Culture; Avebury
Regis, J. (2003): Crime, Culture and Cultural Criminology; University of Minnesota Press
Tierney, J. (2006): Criminology -Theory and Context; Routledge
Valier, C. (2003): Crime and Punishment in Contemporary Culture; Routledge
Wilson, E. (2001): The Contradictions of Culture; London: Sage

The author of this article is a holder of Masters in Business Administration (MBA) from Harvard University and currently pursing PhD Program. He is also a professional academic writer. ResearchPapers247.Com>