Neo-Marxism: Critical Criminology

What are neo-Marxists?

Sociologists who have been influenced by many of the ideas put forward by Marxism, but they combine these with ideas from other approaches such as labelling theory.

What is the most important neo-Marxist contribution to our understanding of crime and deviance?

The New Criminology, by Taylor, Walton and Young.

What does Taylor et al. agree with Marxists about?

• Capitalist society is based on exploitation and class conflict and characterised by extreme inequalities of wealth and power. Understanding this is the key to understanding crime.

• The state makes and enforces laws in the interests of the capitalist class and criminalises members of the working class.

• Capitalism should be replaced by a classless society. This would greatly reduce the extent of crime or even rid society of crime entirely.

How do the views of Taylor et al. differ significantly from those of Marxists?

Much of their book is a critique of existing theories of crime and deviance, including both Marxist and non-Marxist approaches, and they describe their approach as critical criminology.

What do Taylor et al. argue?

That Marxism is deterministic. For example, it sees workers as driven to commit crime out of economic necessity. They reject this explanation, along with theories that claim crime is caused by other external factors such as anomie, subcultures, or labelling, or by biological or psychological factors.

What view do Taylor et al. take?

A more voluntaristic one that sees crime as meaningful action and a conscious choice by the actor. In particular, they argue that crime often has a political motive, for example to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor.

Does Taylor et al. see criminals as passive puppets whose behaviour is shaped by capitalism?

No, for them, they are deliberately thriving to change society.

What do Taylor et al. aim to do?

Create a ‘fully social theory of deviance‘ - a comprehensive understanding of crime and deviance that would help to change society for the better. It would have two main sources.

What would be the two main sources of Taylor et al.’s ‘fully social theory of deviance‘?

• Marxist ideas about the unequal distribution of wealth and who has the power to make and enforce the law.

• Ideas from interactionism and labelling theory about the meaning of the deviant act for the actor, societal reactions to it, and the effects of the deviant label on the individual.

In Taylor et al.’s view, what does a complete theory of deviance need to unite?

Six aspects:

1. The wider origins of the deviant act in the unequal distribution of wealth and power in capitalist society.

2. The immediate origins of the deviant act - the particular context in which the individual decides to commit the act.

3. The act itself and its meaning for the actor - e.g. was it a form of rebellion against capitalism?

4. The immediate origins of social reaction - the reactions of those around the deviant, such as police, family and community, to discovering the deviance.

5. The wider origins of social reaction in the structure of capitalist society - especially the issue of who has the power to define actions as deviant and to label others, and why some acts are treated more harshly than others.

6. The effects of labelling on the deviants future actions - e.g. why does labelling lead to deviance amplification in some cases but not in others?

For Taylor et al., what is the relationship between the six aspects of a complete theory of deviance?

They are interrelated and need to be understood together as part of a single unified theory.

Why do feminists criticise Taylor et al.’s approach?

For being ‘gender blind‘, focusing excessively on male criminality and at the expense of female criminality.

What are the criticisms of left realists?

• Critical criminology romanticises working-class criminals as 'Robin Hoods' who are fighting capitalism by redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. However, in reality these criminals mostly prey on the poor.

• Taylor et al do not take such crime seriously and they ignore its effects on working-class victims.

What does Burke argue?

That critical criminology is both too general to explain crime and too idealistic to be useful in tackling crime.

What has Hall et al. applied Taylor et al.’s approach to do?

Explain the moral panic over mugging in the 1970s.

What has happened to Taylor et al. since The New Criminology was published?

They have all changed their views.

What do Walton and Young defend?

Some aspect’s of The New Criminology’s approach. They argue that:

• In calling for greater tolerance of diversity in behaviour, the book combated the 'correctionalist bias' in most existing theories - the assumption that sociology's role is simply to find ways of correcting deviant behaviour.

• The book laid some of the foundations for later radical approaches that seek to establish a more just society, such as left realist and feminist theories.