All Crime or Male Crime?
CRIMINOLOGISTS:
Have focused on male crime, yet they haven’t explained what it’s about being male that leads to offending.
Maureen Cain:
‘Men as males have not been the subject of the criminological gaze. Yet the most consistent and dramatic finding [of criminology] is not that most working class criminals are working class – a fact which has received continuous theoretical attention – but that most criminals are, and always have been, men’.
FEMINIST AND POSTMODERNIST THEORIES MAKING MASCULINITY SEEN AS A CAUSE:
James Messerschmidt:
Masculinity is a social construct – or an ‘accomplishment’ and men have to constantly work at constructing and presenting it to others. In doing so, some men have more resources than others to draw upon.
Different masculinities exist, but hegemonic masculinity (prestigious form that most men wish to accomplish) is dominant – ‘work in the paid-labour market, the subordination of women, heterosexism [i.e difference from and desire for women] and the driven and uncontrollable sexuality of men’.
However, some men have subordinated masculinities – gay men, who have no desire to accomplish hegemonic masculinity, as well as lower class and some ethnic minority men, who lack the resources to do so.
CRIMES AND CLASS:
White middle class youths subordinate to teachers and have an accommodating masculinity in school. Outside of school they take an oppositional form through drinking, pranks and vandalism.
White working class youths are oppositional inside and outside of school. They have sexist attitudes of being tough and opposing authority, like Willis’ ‘lads’.
Black working class youths have little chance of a reasonable job, so turn to gangs or violence to achieve masculinity or material success.
Middle class commit white collar and corporate crime to accomplish hegemonic masculinity.
Poorer groups commit street robbery to achieve a subordinated masculinity.
CRITICISMS OF MESSERSCHMIDT:
Is masculinity an explanation of male crime, or just a description of male offenders (e.g tough, controlling, etc.)? Messerschmidt is in danger of a circular argument, that masculinity explains male crimes (e.g violence) because they’re crimes committed by males (who have violent characteristics).
Messerschmidt doesn’t explain why not all men use crime to accomplish masculinity.
He over-works the concept of masculinity to explain virtually all male crimes, from joy riding to embezzlement.
WINLOW:
Globalisation has led to a shift from industrial to de-industrial society:
This has led to the loss of many of the traditional manual jobs through which working class men were able to express their masculinity by hard physical labour and by providing for their families.
The service sector has expanded:
Including the night-time leisure economy of clubs, pubs and bars. For some young working class men, this has provided a combination of legal employment, lucrative criminal opportunities and a means of expressing their masculinity.
Focus on bouncers:
Winlow’s study of bouncers in Sunderland, an area of de-industrialisation and unemployment. Working as bouncers in the pubs and clubs provided young men with both paid work and the opportunity for illegal business ventures in drugs, duty-free tobacco and alcohol and protection rackets, as well as the opportunity to demonstrate their masculinity through the use of violence.
Cloward and Ohlin were right:
Draws upon their distinction between conflict and criminal subcultures. Notes that in modern society, there had always been a violent conflict subculture in Sunderland, in which ‘hard men’ earned status through their ability to use violence. However, the absence of a professional criminal subculture meant there was little opportunity for a career in organised crime.
BODILY CAPITAL:
New illicit business opportunities in the night-time economy means subcultures aren’t just a way of expressing masculinity, but of earning a living too.
One bouncer said he maintained his body capital by developing his physical assets by bodybuilding.
And that it wasn’t just about winning fights because they also had to maintain the sign value of their bodies – ‘looking the part’ so as to discourage competitors from challenging them.
So these sociologists say this reflects postmodern society because signs take on a reality of their own independent or the thing they supposedly represent.
And they think this is a good theory because it shows how the expression of masculinity changes with the move from a modern industrial society to a postmodern, de-industrialised one. This change opens up new criminal opportunities for men who are able to use violence to express masculinity, by creating the conditions for the growth of an organised criminal subculture.