Left Realism
LEFT REALISM:
Developed during the 1980s and 1990s.
Like Marxists, they see society as an unequal capitalist one.
Unlike Marxists they’re reformist and not revolutionary – they look for gradual change rather than a violent overthrow.
They look for practical strategies to overcome crime now, rather than waiting on a revolution to abolish class and crime.
Crime is a real problem that particularly affects disadvantaged groups who are its main victims.
LEFT REALISM CRITICISMS OF OTHER THEORIES ON CRIME:
Labelling theorists:
See working-class criminals as the victims of discriminatory labelling by social control agents. Left realists argue that this approach neglects real victims – working class people, not the rich.
Neo-Marxists:
Romanticise working class criminals as latter-day Robin Hoods, stealing from the rich as an act of political resistance to capitalism. Left realists point out that in fact working class criminals mostly victimise other working class people, not the rich.
Marxists:
Have concentrated on crimes of the powerful, such as corporate crime. Left realists agree that this is important, but they argue that it neglects working class crimes and its effects.
AETIOLOGICAL CRISIS:
Critical criminologists and labelling theorists say that crime statistics are social constructions.
An aetiological crisis is a crisis in explanation – for theories of crime.
Left realists thought crime rates weren’t socially constructed because they argue that the increase is too large to be explained this way – more people were reporting as more people were falling victim.
The evidence that left realists cite is the British Crime Survey and local surveys – local surveys show the problem is bigger than official statistics suggest.
The evidence shows crime is greater than the official statistics for disadvantaged groups with particular crimes such as burglary, street crime and violence. Unskilled workers twice as likely to be burgled.
This affects the disadvantaged groups as they have a higher fear of crime. Fear of attack may prevent women from going out at night. Also less likely to report crime to the police and often reluctant to deal with crimes like domestic abuse, rape and racist attacks.
RELATIVE DEPRIVATION AND INDIVIDUALISM WITH LEFT REALISM:
Lea and Young:
Crime has its roots in deprivation, but deprivation isn’t directly responsible for crime.
Poverty was rife in the 1930s, yet crime rates were low. By contrast living standards have risen since the 1950s but so has crime.
Left realists draw on Runciman’s concept of relative deprivation to explain crime.
This is how deprived people feel in relation to others, or their own expectations.
This can lead people to resent others and to obtain what they feel they’re entitled to, through crime.
Lea and Young:
Argue we live in a paradox, where people are more prosperous, but also more aware of relative deprivation through the media and advertising, which raises everyone’s expectations for material possessions.
Young:
‘The lethal combination is relative deprivation and individualism’.
Individualism causes crime by encouraging the pursuit of self-interest at the expense of others.
Left realists feel individualism is disintegrating families and communities by undermining the values of mutual support and selflessness on which they’re based. This weakens the informal controls that such groups exercise over individuals, creating a spiral of increasing anti-social behaviour, aggression and crime.
LEFT REALISM AND COLLECTIVE OPPOSITION:
Drew a lot of information on subculture from Merton, Cohen and Cloward and Ohlin, especially their concepts of blocked opportunity and subcultures as a group’s reaction to the failure to achieve mainstream goals.
For them, a subculture is a group’s collective solution to the problem of relative deprivation.
Different subgroups have different solutions – some turn to crime, others to religion (theodicy of disprivilege).
Religious subcultures may encourage conformity:
Within the African Caribbean community in Bristol, Ken Pryce identified a variety of subcultures, including hustlers, Rastafarians, ‘saints’ (Pentecostal churchgoers) and working class ‘respectable’.
Criminal subcultures still subscribe to the values and goals of mainstream society, such as materialism and consumerism:
Young notes there are ghettos in the USA where there’s ‘full immersion in the American Dream: a culture hooked on Gucci, BMW and Nikes’. However, opportunities are blocked, so they resort to street crime instead.
LEFT REALISM AND MARGINALISATION:
Marginalised groups lack clear goals and organisations to represent their interests.
Groups such as workers have clear goals (such as better pay and conditions) and often have organisations (such as trade unions) to put pressure on employers and politicians.
As such, they have no need to resort to violence to achieve their goals.
The unemployed youth are marginalised.
They have no organisation to represent them and no clear goals, just a sense of resentment and frustration.
Being powerless to use political means to improve their position, they express their frustration through criminal means such as violence and rioting.
LATE MODERNITY, EXCLUSION AND CRIME:
Late modernity is the 1970s onwards.
The main features of late modernity that make crime worse according to Young are instability, insecurity and exclusion.
The 1950s and 60s were known by the ‘golden age’ of modern capitalist society instead.
The features of this time were stability, security and social inclusion, full employment, low divorce rates, relatively comprehensive welfare state and relatively strong communities. General consensus about right and wrong.
De-industrialisation and the loss of unskilled jobs have increased unemployment. Many jobs are now short term or low pay – increasing insecurity and exclusion.
This has led to increased exclusion of those at the bottom as there’s destabilised family and community life, alongside right wing policies on welfare.
Greater inequality between the rich and the poor, and the spread of free market values encouraging individualism have increased the sense of relative deprivation.
There are three things that show the growing contrast between cultural inclusion and economic exclusion:
Media-saturated late-modern society promotes cultural inclusion – even the poor have access to the media’s materialistic, consumerist, cultural messages.
There’s greater emphasis on leisure, personal consumption and immediate gratification, leading to higher expectations for the ‘grand life’.
At the same time, despite the ideology of meritocracy, the poor are denied opportunities to gain the ‘glittering prizes of wealthy society’.
This is similar to Merton’s strain theory – they experience a gap between the cultural and structural factors.
Relative deprivation is spreading more throughout society as there’s a general resentment at the undeservedly high rewards that some receive, whether top-flight footballers or ‘fat-cat’ bankers. Not confined to those at the bottom.
Relative deprivation downwards is the middle class have to be hardworking and disciplined to succeed and they resent the stereotypical underclass as idle, irresponsible, living off undeserved welfare benefits.
Crime has changed in late modernity as it’s increasing throughout the social structure – not just as the bottom. It’s nastier with an increase in ‘hate crimes’ – often a result of relative deprivation downwards, as in the case of racist attacks against asylum seekers.
The reaction to crime is also changing because informed controls are less effective as families and communities disintegrate. Makes public more intolerant and leads to demands for harsher punishment.
Late modernity is a high crime society with a low tolerance for crime.
THE CRIME RATE:
Young said there was a second aetiological crisis because:
Since the mid 1990s the crime rate has fallen substantially.
Problem for realist explanations as it suggests crime is no longer the major threat that they claimed it was.
Young notes that as crime is a social construction, it may continue to be seen as a problem.
The Crime Survey for England and Wales (2014) found that 61% thought crime had risen, not fallen.
THE RISING ‘ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR RATE’:
Crime surveys show a high level of concern about anti-social behaviour.
Young sees this a result of ‘defining deviance up’.
To try and control a wider range of behaviours the government introduced ASBOs in 1998 and IPNAs (Injunctions to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance) in 2015.
KEY FEATURES OF ASBOS AND IPNAS:
Subjective definition: antisocial behaviour has no objective definition; it’s in the eye of the beholder.
Flexibility: ASBOs have been used against people wearing hoodies, making a noise, letting off fireworks, flyposting or begging, and others besides. The subjective definition means the net can be constantly widened to generate an almost endless number of infringements.
Blurring the boundaries of crime: incivilities become crimes. Breaching an ASBO is itself a crime, thus ‘manufacturing’ more crime.
THE LEFT REALIST SOLUTIONS:
Kinsley, Lea and Young:
Argue that police clear-up rates are too low to act as a deterrent and that the police spent too little time on investigating crime.
Believe that the public should be more involved in determining the police’s priorities and style of policing.
The police depend on the public to provide them with information about crimes (90% of crimes known to the police are reported by the public).
However, they’re losing public support, especially in inner city areas and among ethnic minorities and the young.
As a result the flow of information dries up and the police rely on ‘swamping’ in areas and stop and search.
This creates a vicious circle – people don’t trust the police so report less.
Police must be made accountable to local communities and deal with local concerns.
Routine beat patrols and stop and search are ineffective and cause conflict.
Instead police need to build relationships, and properly investigate more crime to build more trust.
They need to change their priorities – they over-police minor drug offences and under-police racist attacks and domestic violence. The public should be involved in policing policy.
Left realists think the police shouldn’t be the only agency of control and that a multi-agency approach is needed (e.g with local councils, social services, housing departments, schools, leisure services, voluntary organisations, etc.).
The causes of crime lie in the unequal structure of society, therefore their main solution is to deal with the inequality of opportunity, the unfairness of rewards, tackle discrimination, provide decent jobs for everyone and improve housing and community facilities.
Society must become more tolerant of diversity and cease stereotyping whole groups as a criminal.
LEFT REALISM AND GOVERNMENT POLICY:
There are five new labour policies that left realism influenced from 1997-2010:
Their ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’ policies.
A firmer approach to policing hate crimes, sexual assaults and domestic violence.
Introduction of ASBOs.
Introduction of the new deal for unemployed youth.
Anti-truanting policies.
Young regards these policies as doomed attempts to recreate the ‘golden age’ of the 1950s:
The New Deal didn’t lead to secure, permanent jobs.
ASBOs didn’t recreate a sense of community.
Young also criticises the records of governments, including New Labour for addressing symptoms, such as anti-social behaviour – they’ve been tougher on crime, but not on underlying causes.
Young therefore thinks they should be tackling the actual causes of crime instead – what leads people to become deviant.
ADVANTAGE OF LEFT REALISM:
Has succeeded in drawing attention to the reality of street crime and its effects, especially on victims from deprived groups.
CRITICISMS OF LEFT REALISM:
Interactionists argue that, because left realists rely on quantitative date from victim surveys, they can’t explain offenders’ motives.
Their use of subcultural theory means left realists assume that consensus exists and that crime only occurs when this breaks down.
Relative deprivation can’t fully explain crime because not all who experience it commit crime. The theory over-predicts the amount of crime.