The Coverage of Biological Arguments in Criminology Textbooks, 1961 to 1970 and 1987 to 1996
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 1-19, 1998 Copyright © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd Pergamon Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 0047-2352/98 $19.00 + .00 PII S0047-2352(97)00050-0 TABOO UNTIL TODAY? THE COVERAGE OF BIOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS IN CRIMINOLOGY TEXTBOOKS, 1961 TO 1970 AND 1987 TO 1996 RICHARD A. WRIGHT Department of Criminology, Sociology, Social Work, and Geography Arkansas State University State University, Arkansas 72467 J. MITCHELLMILLER College of Criminal Justice University of South Carolina Columbia, South Carolina 29208 ABSTRACT In American criminology throughout most of the twentieth century, biological arguments that link biochemistry, genetics, and~or neurophysiology to crime have been viewed as taboo: unthinkable and unmentionable. Despite this reputation, biological perspectives have resurged in the last two decades, reshaping theory and research in criminology. This article examines the changes in the taboo image oJ biological arguments in fifty-five introductory criminology textbooks: twenty published from 1961 to 1970 and thirty-five appearing from 1987 to 1996. The data show that the taboo surrounding biocrimi- nology appears to be diminishing in textbooks: Newer texts devote more coverage to biological perspec- tives and are more likely to claim that there is at least some empirical evidence supporting these argu- ments. Furthermore, criminology textbooks that embrace interdisciplinary orientations are less likely to depict biological arguments as taboo than books that endorse sociological, and especially critical socio- logical orientations. © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd INTRODUCTION 1914), Charles Goring (1913), and especially Cesare Lombroso (1876, [1912] 1968). (See also It is often observed that the modern disci- Sellin, 1992; Wolfgang, 1972). These thinkers pline of criminology originated at the dawn of believed that criminal behavior is associated the twentieth century in the biological theories with such inherited characteristics as physical endorsed by such European thinkers as Enrico stigmata (Lombroso) and mental deficiency Ferri ([1892] 1917), Raffaele Garofalo ([1885] (Goring). Beginning in the 1930s, however, 2 R.A. WRIGHTand J. M. MILLER criminologists in the United States voiced con- ods permitted the comparison of the coverage in siderable suspicion about the biological theories textbooks before and after the renewal of inter- of crime that dominated European thought. Amer- est in biological explanations for crime. The ev- ican criminologists with advanced degrees in idence shows that the taboo image of biological sociology increasingly saw crime as the result perspectives appears to be slowly dissipating in of social disorganization and social learning, not the introductory criminology textbooks. inherited physiology or feeblemindedness (Gib- bons, 1994). By mid-century, biological expla- nations for crime were passr, disreputable, and THE ORIGINS OF THE TABOO perhaps even taboo. They were unthinkable and unmentionable (Gordon, 1980; Jeffery, 1980; Although criminology arguably originated in Sagarin, 1980). Describing this taboo, Sagarin the theories of biological positivism chiefly pro- (1980:9) remarked that criminologists who claim posed by such European scholars as Ferri ([1892] there are biological predispositions to crime 1917), Garofalo ([1885] 1914), Goring (1913), "are often given short shrift, their ideas are dis- and Lombroso (1876, [1912] 1968), the 1930s missed with derision, [and] they are in other witnessed a dramatic shift in criminology in the ways subject to an informal collegial punish- United States away from nature arguments and ment, perhaps short of ostracism, but nonethe- toward nurture perspectives. During the 1930s, less unwelcome." American sociologists waged a successful turf In the last few years, however, biological ex- war against biologists, psychologists, and phy- planations of human behavior have enjoyed a sicians, wresting criminology from its biologi- tremendous resurgence in popularity among ac- cal roots, to make the growing field a specialty ademicians. A major impetus behind this re- within the larger discipline of sociology (Gib- newed interest in the general social sciences was bons, 1994). Part of this struggle involved the the publication of E. O. Wilson's (1975) path- repudiation of biological explanations of crime, breaking Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, a arguments antithetical to the emerging radical complex attempt to explain human behavior as nurture perspectives of the sociologists. 2 a combination of genetic factors (nature) and Unquestionably, the eminent scholar Edwin H. social learning (nurture). In criminology per se, Sutherland was the leading turf warrior in so- the appearance of James Q. Wilson and Richard J. ciological criminology during this period. From Hermstein' s (1985) Crime and Human Nature-- his first volley against biological arguments in a an ambitious effort to explain criminal behavior 1931 publication titled "Mental Deficiency and as a product of rational choice and genetic con- Crime" (a book chapter attacking attempts by psy- straints--signaled a renewed recognition that chologists like Henry H. Goddard to connect low biological factors have some role in crime cau- intelligence quotient (IQ) scores to crime and sation. 1 delinquency), to his final broadside criticism of This article examines the coverage of biolog- the somatotype arguments in William Sheldon's ical arguments in introductory criminology text- (1949) Varieties of Delinquent Youth: An Intro- books. It begins by briefly (1) tracing the ori- duction to Constitutional Psychiatry (in a scath- gins of the taboo status of biological explanations ing posthumous review essay published in of crime in American criminology from the 1951), Sutherland waged a vigorous and relent- 1930s and (2) reviewing modem theories and less campaign against biological perspectives. research that offer empirical evidence in sup- By the time of his death in 1950, Sutherland had port of biological explanations of crime. The succeeded in virtually obliterating biological quality and the quantity of the coverage of bio- thinking from mainstream criminology. logical arguments in criminology textbooks is Sutherland' s most influential dismissal of bi- then analyzed to determine if the authors depict ological explanations for crime appeared in his these perspectives as taboo. Altogether, fifty- extremely influential textbook Principles of five textbooks were studied during two time pe- Criminology. Beginning in the fourth edition, riods: 1961-1970 and 1987-1996. These peri- Sutherland (1947) rejected biological arguments Taboo Until Today? 3 by proclamation in principle one of his differen- that should be "transparent to thoughtful per- tial association theory: "Criminal behavior is sons" (Gordon, 1980:57). It is no more reason- learned. Negatively, this means that criminal able to connect biological theories of behavior behavior is not inherited, as such" (Sutherland, to the actions of Hitler than to blame the theo- Cressey, and Luckenbill, 1992:88). More an at- ries of Karl Marx for the extermination of mil- tempt to eliminate the discussion of biological lions of peasants in the Soviet Union under the arguments by fiat rather than by logic or rule of Joseph Stalin. through empirical evidence, seven subsequent The historical tendency for sociologically editions of the textbook contained this state- trained and oriented criminologists to dismiss ment. Generations of criminology students nature explanations of crime--and for critical (some of whom were future professors) memo- criminologists to associate these arguments with rized this principle so that even if criminal be- sexism, racism, and fascism--fostered the ta- havior was not learned, the taboo of inherited boo image of biological perspectives in crimi- criminality was. nology. In recent criminology textbooks, the In certain circles, sociologists continue the theoretical orientations embraced by authors denunciation of biological explanations for (e.g., interdisciplinary, critical sociological, and crime. Some of the most strident criticisms to- non critical sociological perspectives) logically day come from sociological criminologists who should influence how they depict biological the- endorse critical perspectives (see Katz and ories of crime. Chambliss, 1995; Platt and Takagi, 1979; Tay- lor, Walton, and Young, 1973). Because they believe that crime and the law are fundamen- MODERN BIOCRIMINOLOGY: THEORIES tally shaped by structural relations in the politi- AND RESEARCH cal economy--with particular emphasis on ine- qualities in class, race, and gender---critical The resurgence of interest in biological ex- criminologists reject nature arguments in favor planations of crime---or biocriminology--has of radical nurture orientations? taken numerous forms, involving innovations in One of the criticisms that critical criminolo- theories and research. Here, some of these de- gists level against biological arguments is prob- velopments are briefly surveyed. ably deserved (e.g., the claim that these theories Most of the important theoretical innovations are aimed mostly at explaining street crime, and in biocriminology were anticipated by E. O. neglect white-collar offenses; Platt and Takagi, Wilson's (1975) pathbreaking book Sociobiol- 1979). More problematic is the tendency for ogy: The New Synthesis, which was an attempt critical criminologists to politicize biological to explain human behaviors as