This File Was Downloaded From

This is the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source:

DeKeseredy, Walter S. (2016) Thinking critically about rural crime: The inﬂuence of William J. Chambliss. Critical Criminology, 24(2), pp. 263-278.

This ﬁle was downloaded from: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/92394/

The ﬁnal publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10612-015-9307-2

Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such as copy-editing and formatting may not be reﬂected in this document. For a deﬁnitive version of this work, please refer to the published source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-015-9307-2 Thinking Critically about Rural Crime:

The Influence of William J. Chambliss*

Walter S. DeKeseredy

Anna Deane Carlson Endowed Chair of Social Sciences,

Director of the Research Center on Violence, and

Professor of Sociology

Department of Sociology and Anthropology

West Virginia University

Morgantown, WV

U.S.A. 26510

(304) 216-6964

[email protected]

School of Justice

Faculty of Law

Queensland University of Technology

Brisbane, Australia

In press with Critical Criminology: An International Journal

*I would like to thank Joseph F. Donnermeyer, Raymond J. Michalowski, Claire Renzetti, and

Martin D. Schwartz for their comments on previous drafts of this article.

Abstract

William J. Chambliss (Bill) is well-known for his path-breaking theories of lawmaking and for his innovative research on state-organized crime. However, rarely discussed is the fact that his study of the original vagrancy laws marked the birth of rural critical criminology. The main objective of this article is twofold: (1) to show how Bill helped shape contemporary rural critical criminology and (2) to provide suggestions for further critical theoretical and empirical work on rural crime and social control.

Critical criminology gained much since its birth in the late 1960s and there is now plenty of room for various accounts of its exciting history. Still, all contemporary critical criminologists would be remiss if their chronicles did not acknowledge a path-breaking cadre of progressive academics who enabled them to thrive in this current era. William J. Chambliss, affectionately known to his close friends and colleagues as Bill, is among this pioneering group of scholars and activists that my friend and colleague David O. Friedrichs refers to as "first generation" critical criminologists.

Bill brought much to the critical criminological table and it is beyond the scope of this article to summarize all of his seminal offerings. Arguably, he continues to be best known for his sophisticated theories of lawmaking and for his innovative research on state-organized crime.1

Yet, Bill broke intellectual ground in ways that are either unknown or seldom discussed today.

For example, in this current era, many progressive people cite and teach the critical ethnographic work done by scholars such as Philippe Bourgois (1995), David Brotherton and Luis Barrios

(2004), and Alice Goffman (2014).2 What about Bill's (1973a) study of the Saints and

Roughnecks? What makes this ethnography important is that the theoretical implications of his two-year study of high school, working- and middle-class youths with roughly equal rates of delinquency move well beyond Lemert's (1951) theory of secondary deviance and tell us much about the linkage between social class, societal reactions, and career outcomes (DeKeseredy,

Ellis and Alvi 2005).

Today, most criminological discussions on ethnographic work focus primarily on studies of socially and economically excluded youth in conflict with the law and Goffman's (2014) work

1 See, for example, his 1971 co-authored book (with R. Seidman) Law, Order, and Power and his 1978 and 1988 renditions of On the Take: From Petty Crooks to Presidents. 2 Critical ethnography is similar to orthodox ethnography in the that it examines people's meanings and their point of view. However, what makes it distinct is that it has a "political purpose" and links people's meanings and points of view to broader social forces and to systems of power relationships (Harvey 2014; Madison 2012; Thomas 1993). 2 is a prime example. Yet, I suspect if you asked many people today if they heard of a critical ethnographic study of crimes of the powerful, such as corporations dumping toxic waste, less than a handful of young or early scholars would promptly reply, "Chambliss' (1978, 1988) On the Take: From Petty Crooks to Presidents. Perhaps the best description of this book and the data presented in it is found on the back cover of the second edition:

From bagman to businessman, from pusher to politician, this is the story of the billion-

dollar rip off built on such criminal activities as gambling, drugs, usury, and graft....

Chambliss shows how local crime networks are connected to national business and

political interests in a shocking expose/ of crime, business, and politics in America.

Feminist scholar Claire Renzetti visited West Virginia University on September 15, 2015.

This was a golden opportunity for me to seek greater insight into Bill's qualitative projects because she was one of Bill's doctoral students when they were both at the University of

Delaware. She told me that Bill always ensured that his data were accurate, that he kept all of his notes and interviews, and that he used other techniques required to meet the highest ethnographic research standards. Ample empirical support for her recollection is found in the appendices included in the 1988 rendition of On the Take. What is more, Bill's ethnographic work was among the first done by critical criminologists to effectively challenge the erroneous claim that the critical criminological "literature is characterized by too many ideas and not enough systematic research and that most empirical studies are illustrative of, but do not actually test the theory" (Kubrin, Stucky and Krohn 2009, p. 239, emphasis in original).

On top of being a brilliant theorist and "cutting-edge" ethnographer, Bill helped progressive scholars around the world build coalitions. One important example of an international partnership that Bill was involved with is Taylor, Walton, and Young's (1975)

3 anthology Critical Criminology, which includes Bill's (1975) article "The political economy of crime: A comparative study of Nigeria and the USA." What makes this book and the articles included in it so important is that they marked the birth of the term critical criminology

(DeKeseredy in press). Some may fundamentally disagree with my historical account and such a response is warmly welcomed. As Raymond Michalowski (1996) states in his story of critical criminology, "This is all to the good. I increasingly suspect that we can best arrive at a useful truth by telling multiple versions of the same story" (p. 9).

There is another part of Bill's scholarly life that is also not widely known and that is the roots of critical rural criminology are found in Bill's trail-blazing study (1964, 1973b) of the original vagrancy laws (Coventry and Palmer 2008; DeKeseredy and Donnermeyer 2013;

Donnermeyer and DeKeseredy, 2014). He found that one of the key reasons for designing these statutes was the Black Death that occurred during the middle of the 14th century. There was a cholera epidemic that reduced Europe's population by as much as 50%. Consequently, England experienced a major shortage of cheap labor. Additionally, to increase their standard of living, laborers left land estates to seek higher wages in new industrial towns and the chances of being caught were minimal at best. This created major problems for landowners because they could not offer competitive salaries. Hence, the Crown sided with the landowners and created vagrancy laws that made it an offence to refuse work or to leave a job without permission.

Bill did not continue down the rural critical criminological path. Perhaps if he had, a rural critical criminology would have developed much earlier. Nonetheless, he helped motivate me,

Joseph (Joe) Donnermeyer, and a growing number of rural critical criminologists to follow in his footsteps over the past 20 years. The main objective of this article is to show how Bill helped

4 shape contemporary rural critical criminology and (2) to provide suggestions for further critical theoretical and empirical work on rural crime and social control.

Rural Critical Criminology Today

One of the most significant pitfalls of mainstream or orthodox criminology is its urban- centric bias. Critical criminology is certainly not immune from this criticism. Note that it was not until 2014 that Critical Criminology published a special issue edited by Kerry Carrington, Joe

Donnermeyer, and I on rural critical criminology (see Volume 22). Criminology, however, in all its shapes and forms, was not always urban-centric. As Weisheit, Wells, and Falcone (2006) remind us:

The earliest theories in American criminology were characterized by a distinctly

nonurban perspective, reflecting the predominantly rural, small-town backgrounds of

most of the pioneering theorists in sociology and criminology (Laub 1983; Mills 1943).

In 1900, over 70% of Americans lived in rural areas and what we now call suburbs hardly

existed (Hobbs and Stoops 2002). Rural communities and towns were implicitly taken as

the natural social form, providing the stable reference point from which urban life could

be analyzed as an interesting deviation (p. 10).

The social world is multivariate and single-factor explanations cannot adequately account for the current state criminological theorizing. Yet, it is safe to claim that as contemporary society became more urbanized, so did academic criminology. Arguably, the trend toward crafting and testing theories of crime in urban areas took flight after the 1950s from a well-built intellectual runway constructed in the first half of the 20th century and even extending back to the previous century (Donnermeyer and DeKeseredy 2014; Weisheit et al. 2006).

Some critical criminologists are among a rapidly growing group of scholars who are chipping away at criminology's twin Bastilles - urban-centrism and positivism. Though Bill's work on the original vagrancy laws is mentioned in only a few contemporary rural critical criminological publications, his influence is definitely found in the early stages of the development of rural critical criminology. Key examples are the critical ethnographic studies of woman abuse in rural communities done by Gagne (1992, 1996) and Websdale (1998).3 The research described in these works resembles Bill's rigorous ethnographic work cited previously in this article.

The writings of Gagne and Websdale are deemed by some observers as "sparking" recent contemporary critical interpretations of rural crime and social control (Carrington, Donnermeyer, and DeKeseredy 2014). Yet, the fire really did not emerge until the latter part of the last decade, with the publication of a spate of scholarly books, journal articles and chapters, many of which are heavily informed by masculinities and feminist theories and that focus on male violence against women.4 Rural critical criminology now is a wider theoretical and political endeavour.

For instance, we are witnessing the emergence of a rural left realism (see Donnermeyer and

DeKeseredy 2008, 2014), something that was called for close to 30 years ago (Wood 1990). As well, the rural critical criminological project is becoming more broadly intersectionalist in its theoretical approach, as some progressive scholars in the field strive not to privilege any social fact in the construction of crime problems (Carrington et al. 2014). Intersectionality involves examining "the manner in which racism, patriarchy, class oppression, and other discriminatory systems create background inequalities that structure the relative positions of women, races, ethnicities, classes and the like" (Crenshaw 2000, p. 8).

3 Websdale, though, cites two other articles that Bill (1994, 1995) wrote. 4 See DeKeseredy (2015) and Donnermeyer and DeKeseredy (2014) for in-depth reviews of the recent feminist contributions to a critical understanding of rural crime and social control. 6

The innovations of cultural and green criminology are also being injected into the study of rural crime and social control. For instance, DeKeseredy, Muzzatti, and Donnermeyer's (2014) analysis of the horrification/pornification of rural culture reveals that a rich social scientific understanding of highly degrading and grossly distorted media representation of sexuality and male-to-female violence can be obtained by merging cultural criminology's concerns with those of feminists.

Like rural variants of cultural criminology, rural green scholarship involves doing collaborative theoretical and empirical work with an international body of academics. One recent example of such "intellectual cross fertilization" is Brisman, McClanahan and South's (2014)

Anglo-American creation of a “green-cultural criminology of the rural.” These colleagues merge green criminologists' concerns with cultural criminology's concern with "culture" and compel cultural criminologists to adopt green scholars' view of the "consumption landscape" and the proliferation of environmental harms. It should also be noted in passing that the concerns of green criminologists also merge with some other rural critical criminologists' interests, such as agricultural crime (Donnermeyer and DeKeseredy, 2014).

As time passes and as more academics become involved in the rural critical criminological project, we will see even more innovative theoretical developments. What makes the current and the forthcoming offerings intellectually attractive is that they collectively offer a refreshing alternative to ecological perspectives, such as social disorganization theory. These are the dominant schools of thought within the entire field of rural criminology despite consistently being the targets of sharp criticism within both progressive and mainstream criminological circles. For example, Lee (2008) asserts that:

Existing ecologically based theories, such as the social disorganization model, rely on a

very narrow conception of the appropriate unit of analysis – neighborhoods – for the

theoretical processes specified in the model. This analysis is extremely problematic for

the rural context given that conventional urban-type neighborhoods are few and far

between and that in many places the nearest neighbors actually live miles apart.

This is not to say, though, that ecological perspectives should be outright dismissed by rural critical criminologists. In fact, Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earl’s (1997, 1998) concept of collective efficacy – the often labeled antithesis of social disorganization – is used by some critical criminologists such as myself, Joe Donnermeyer, and Martin (Marty) Schwartz (see

DeKeseredy and Schwartz 2008, 2009; Donnermeyer and DeKeseredy 2014) to help explain why rural communities have high rates of violence against women. Sampson et al. (1998) define collective efficacy as “mutual trust among neighbors combined with a willingness to act on behalf of the common good, specifically to supervise children and maintain public order” (p. 1).

Social disorganization, on the other hand, is generally defined as “the inability of a community structure to realize the common values of its residents and maintain effective controls” (Sampson and Groves 1989, p. 777).

Joe, Marty, and I assert that collective efficacy in rural areas takes different shapes and forms, and is not necessarily restricted to deterring or preventing crimes (Barclay, Donnermeyer, and Jobes 2004; DeKeseredy et al. 2007; DeKeseredy and Schwartz 2009). Our research also supports the observation of some urban criminologists that what may appear to outsiders as social disorganization is often a different form of social organization if one looks more closely at a community (Venkatesh 2000; Wacquant 1997). Consider that 67% of the 43 rural women interviewed by DeKeseredy, Schwartz, Fagen, and Hall (2006) reported on a variety of ways in

8 which their ex-partners’ male peers encouraged and rationalized separation/divorce assault. Such patriarchal practices and discourses are not sustained in a socio-cultural vacuum of individuals acting mostly on their own, but in networks of similar minded males. For Joe and me

(Donnermeyer and DeKeseredy 2014), it is not social disorganization that frees up a few

“deviants” to commit crime, but forms of collective efficacy or social organization that allow individuals to learn about and act in ways that sustain and reinforce their offending.

Similarly, Websdale (1998) found evidence of a powerful “ol’ boys network” that serves to dominate and oppress rural Kentucky women. Biased policing exists everywhere, but it may be more prevalent in rural places (DeKeseredy and Rennison 2013). Rural police officers tend to be friends with some men who batter their current or former female partners, play sports and drink alcohol with them, and are more likely to refuse to arrest batterers because of what is referred to in Australia as “mateship norms” (Owen 2012; Scott and Jobes 2007). Furthermore,

DeKeseredy and Schwartz's (2009) qualitative study of separation/divorce sexual assault in rural

Ohio suggests that patriarchal male peer support is more deeply entrenched in rural communities than in urban and suburban ones. This problem is defined as attachments to male peers and the resources they provide that encourage and legitimate woman abuse (DeKeseredy

1988).

What some rural critical criminologists emphasize is that “social organization may facilitate some types of crime even as it constrains others” (Donnermeyer, Jobes, and Barclay

2006, p. 207). Though he did put it exactly the same way, this what Bill found in study of organized crime in Seattle featured in On the Take. For rural critical criminologists like me, Joe, and Marty, simply put, social disorganization is the wrong word, and when juxtaposed with organization, presents another false dichotomy than hinders an understanding of rural (and urban

9 crime). From a critical perspective, there is really no such thing as disorganization, only varieties of social structure that facilitate and constrain actions that are defined as either law-abiding or criminal (Donnermeyer 2012).

Joe and I (see Donnermeyer and DeKeseredy 2014) further assert that collective efficacy, as more recently defined by Sampson (2012) is one-dimensional and focuses only on aspects of localized forms of social structure which reduce only certain kinds of crime. We further contend that Sampson (2013) creates another false dichotomy by referring to norms that constrain people in neighborhoods from reporting crime (i.e., snitching) as a type of “anti-collective efficacy” rather than recognizing that collective efficacy can go both ways when thinking theoretically about crime and social control. What some rural critical criminological theorists do, then, is emphasize that this “black sheep” form of collective efficacy should be as much , if not more, the focus of criminology as the other kind.

In addition to trying to enhance different ways of theorizing rural social problems, rural critical criminologists collect quantitative and qualitative data on a host of topics, including: separation/divorce assault (Rennison, DeKeseredy, and Dragiewicz 2012, 2013), drug use and distribution (Garriott 2011; Grant 2008), rural policing (Mawby and Yarwood 2011; Websdale

1998), rural racism (Chakraborti and Garland 2004), and crimes committed by and against farmers (Barclay and Donnermeyer 2007; Donnermeyer, Barclay, and Mears 2010; Walters

2004, 2006). The topics very briefly mentioned here constitute just the tip of iceberg. For example, Donnermeyer’s (2016) Routledge International Handbook of Rural Criminology is not only the first ever of its kind, but also includes 42 chapters riddled with critical empirical data on a variety of issues that typically receive selective inattention from urban criminologists or that they have never heard of. This anthology should be commended for pushing the boundaries of

10 rural critical criminological work beyond a few countries which currently dominate the extant literature, namely, Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and the United States. In fact, there are contributions from scholars based in 14 countries included in the Handbook, which reveals that rural criminology is gaining much momentum.

Needless to say, Bill worked tirelessly with his progressive colleagues to promote radical social change. This, too, is what rural critical criminologists have in common with him.

Moreover, all of the progressive rural criminologists I know are heavily influenced by left realist approaches to curbing crime, particularly those proposed by North American scholars like Elliott

Currie (1985, 2009). This involves working for broader social change while simultaneously pushing for short-term initiatives that target patriarchal capitalism (Messerschmidt 1986), including:

 a higher minimum wage;

 job rationing;

 meaningful jobs;

 state-sponsored, affordable, and quality daycare;

 housing subsidy and refurbishment programs;

 subsidizing transportation;

 increased funding for rural service providers; and

 building community capacity (DeKeseredy and Donnermeyer 2013; DeKeseredy and

Schwartz 2009; Donnermeyer and DeKeseredy 2014).

Following both British and North American left realists, the issue that rural critical criminologists take on is what to do while living under the current oppressive political economic

11 system. These scholars are not alone in their thinking. Actually, few critical criminologists believe that truly fundamental changes will occur soon in advanced capitalist societies, and there is ample evidence that many parts of the world are "moving in precisely the wrong directions" if the goal is to curb violence and other serious crimes (Currie 2009, p. 112). Bill would agree.

John Lea and Jock Young (1984) are two original left realists who ask, "What is to be Done

About Law and Order?", and Bill, based on his studies of organized crime networks, asked

"What Can Be Done?" He, too, had little, if any, faith that major structural changes were around the corner:

If our theory is correct, only a revolution could eliminate the contradictions that create

the tendency of criminal networks to develop in capitalist societies. Aside from a

revolution, which seems unlikely in the near future, we must seek better alternatives to

the conflicts and dilemmas generated by contradictions which will not go away.

Most proposals for eliminating crime networks are either moral pronouncements or a call

for revolution. Neither is very realistic. Crime networks will not disappear by moral

preachments or by changing the individuals in positions of power so long as crime

remains a solution to structural contradictions. A revolution is neither certain to eliminate

contradictions nor likely in the foreseeable future. Thus crime networks will in all

likelihood continue to be pervasive. We can, however, reduce their importance and

control their power (1988, p. 213).

Bill did not leave it at that. He proposed concrete solutions such as the "elimination of all private funding for [election] campaigns and strict accounting for expenditures including the contribution made by so-called 'voluntary' workers" (1988, p. 213). It was not until writing this article and revisiting On The Take that I came to the conclusion that Bill may have been a "closet

12 left realist." Furthermore, I deeply regret not including his progressive short-term solutions in my own left realist writings and in my co-authored work with Marty Schwartz and Joe

Donnermeyer. They certainly would have been useful for crafting responses to claims that left realists do not take crimes of the powerful seriously (Henry 1999).

The Future of Rural Critical Criminology

I sincerely hope that Bill's presence will continue to be felt in future waves of rural critical criminological scholarship because new empirical and theoretical work is sorely needed.

One obvious new step is to follow in Bill's footsteps by conducting critical ethnographic studies of rural youth subcultures. Thus, far the bulk of the work on rural youth crime focuses mainly on violence, is informed by social disorganization theory, and is quantitative in nature, with an emphasis on using official statistics (Osgoode and Chambers 2000, 2003). There are some exceptions to the rule, such as Swift's (2015) work on girl-to-girl fighting in rural New Zealand, but none of them provide rich data on the linkage between social class, societal reactions, and career outcomes.

This is not to say, however, that there are no rural ethnographic studies of crime and social control. Recall the work of Gagne and Websdale discussed earlier. Nonetheless, it is time to ethnographically study topics other than violence against women. In addition to youth in conflict with the law, another topic that requires attention is the plight of Indigenous people, many of whom live in rural communities and experience alarmingly high rates of violent crime compared to non-aboriginal people (Donnermeyer and DeKeseredy 2014; Perry 2009).5 Keep in mind that the bulk of the limited criminological research done on indigenous is state-sponsored,

5 For example, nearly three percent of the 35 million Canadian citizens publicly identify themselves as Aboriginal or native, it is estimate that they are 12.5 times more likely to be victims of robbery or physical or sexual assault than non-Aboriginal people (Siegel and McCormick 2015). 13 positivist, does not involve Aboriginal or Indigenous scholars, and has done more harm than good. As Maori critical criminologist Juan Marcellus Tauri (2013) puts it:

This paradigm avoids or sidelines complicated, messy structural determinants such as

racist policing, racist court practices, racist government policy and legislation.... These

supposedly difficult-to-measure determinants of Indigenous marginalization are often

dismissed through flippant and empirically weak contentions that institutional bias and

structural determination have dominated (and negatively impacted) Aboriginal

policymaking (pp. 219-220).

Indigenous criminalization in rural communities is subject to greater critical criminological scrutiny in Australia than in other parts of the world. Perhaps this is because although the over-representation of Indigenous people is a global problem, "in contemporary

Australia it is a catastrophic problem, with at any one time at least one in five young Indigenous men under some form of criminal justice supervision" (Carrington and Hogg 2012, p. 51). There is much that North American rural critical criminologists (as well as those based in other countries) can learn from their Australian colleagues about Indigenous issues and hopefully some innovative comparative work will emerge in the near future.

What about the experiences of rural members of other ethnic/racial groups? There is a growing body of progressive social scientific knowledge on rural racism and a book on this harm (see Chakraborti and Garland 2004) greatly helped the development of rural criminology.

Even so, little is known about many rural minority and marginalized groups' experiences as offenders and how they are treated by agents of social control. For this and other reasons presented in this part of my article, in crafting research designs and developing theories, "we

14 should always be conscious of who is not there and that were are not hearing those perspectives"

(Gilfus et al. 1999, p. 1207).

Except for feminist work on male violence against women and masculinity and violence, much of rural critical criminology is "gender-blind" (Gelsthorpe and Morris 1988). Of course, criminology in general, too, can easily be accused of this. So can some other critical criminological schools of thought, such as green criminology. For example, the words

"feminism" and "gender" are nowhere to be found in the index included in White and

Heckenberg's (2014) widely read and cited Green Criminology: An Introduction to the Study of

Environmental Crime. Also conspicuously absent from this book is an examination of ecofeminism, which is a school of thought first introduced in a 1974 book written by French feminist scholar Francoise d'Eaubonne.

Many readers may argue that one cannot expect any particular school of progressive thought to attend to the concerns of every social group that exists on this planet. Nonetheless, there is a danger that, despite doing feminist work on violence against women, rural critical criminology could end up being "an old boys club." There is empirical support for this concern, given that most rural critical criminologists are White men. While it is incumbent on rural criminologists of all intellectual walks of life to work more closely with women and to develop equal scholarly partnerships with them, the solution is not simply "adding women onto the agenda" (Currie and MacLean 1993, p. 6), but rather to join them in a critical examination of the role of gender in all types of rural crime and the societal reactions they generate. As well, gender should not be confused with sex even though both terms are often incorrectly used interchangeably (DeKeseredy 2011). These two concepts are related but are not the same.

Gender is commonly defined as "the socially defined expectation, characteristics, attributes,

15 roles, responsibilities, activities and practices that constitute masculinity, femininity, gender identity, and gender expressions (Flavin and Artz 2013, p. 11). Sex, on the other hand, refers to the biologically based categories of "female" and "male" that are stable across history and cultures (Dragiewicz 2009).

There are consistent sex differences in crime that are heavily influenced by dominant gender norms (DeKeseredy 2015; Schur 1984). However, some academics, such as Niehoff

(2014), help perpetuate and legitimate the myth about a genetic basis for male aggression. A wealth of interdisciplinary research shows that it is true that the most robust determinant of who commits beatings, homicides, rapes, and other violent crimes is whether the offender is male.

Yet, these harms have little to do with their biological makeup or with factors identified by evolutionary psychologists (Dagg and Harding 2012; DeKeseredy 2013). Rather, they are mainly products of sociological forces, which is another point made by Bill that is rarely discussed in contemporary critical criminological circles. Janet Katz and Bill (1991) discovered through an in-depth review of the research on the relationship between biology and crime that:

An individual learns to be aggressive in the same manner that he or she learns to exhibit

aggression. One is not in a natural state, and the other culturally imposed: both within our

biological potential. Violence, sexism, and racism are biological only in the sense that

they are within the range of possible human attitudes and behaviors. But nonviolence,

equality, and justice are also biologically possible (p. 270).

Masculinities theorists, such as Messerschmidt and Tomsen (2012), strongly agree with this point and contend that if "boys will be boys," they "will be so differently" (Kimmel

2000),depending on where they live, their peer groups, social class position, race/ethnicity, and a host of other factors (DeKeseredy 2015; Messerschmidt 2014). Evidence in support of this claim

16 is that while men commit most of the violent crimes on this planet, many societies have much lower rates of male violence in general than those of the U.S., the Russian Federation, or

Columbia (Currie 2009, 2012; Krug et al. 2002). Nonetheless, high rates of male violence against women seem to be the norm around the world (DeKeseredy and Schwartz 2013; Garcia-Moreno et al. 2005; Johnson, Ollus, and Nevala 2008). Still, this can be attributed, in large part, to the fact that throughout the world, the gender structure is primarily patriarchal (Renzetti 2013).

Turning to other types of crimes, there still are consistent sex differences that are heavily influenced by gender norms. For instance, men and women commit some of the same crimes, but for different reasons. Men typically steal as a means of "doing masculinity" and they tend to

"pinch" goods like iPhones and stereos, items that are not necessary for their survival (Chesney-

Lind and Pasko 2013; Messerschmidt 1993). On the other hand, women steal items that are lower in value but are useful to them as mothers, homemakers, or for feminine appearances (e.g., clothing, groceries, and makeup). They also write "bad checks" mainly to get these goods.

Likewise, most women who defraud the government do so because they and their children cannot afford to live on minimal welfare payments or wages accumulated from "pink ghetto" work, such as being a server in a fast-food restaurant (Barker 2009; Morash and Yingling 2012).

The next obvious step in critically examining the role of gender in rural crime is to determine whether rural women and girls are at greater risk of committing crimes than their urban counterparts. Our knowledge of similarities and differences in criminal justice system responses to rural and urban women/girls in conflict with the law is also limited. What are lacking, too, are feminist studies of the gendered nature of rural crimes of the powerful

(DeKeseredy and Dragiewicz 2013). The little feminist work that has been done on such crimes in rural places mainly examines state-sanctioned violence against women and various types of

17 harms caused by mining companies in Australia (Carrington 2012; Carrington, Hogg and

McIntosh 2011; Carrington, Hogg, McIntosh and Scott 2012; Mullins 2009). Consider, too, that nowhere in Friedrichs and Rothe's (2012) in-depth review of the literature on white collar and other variants of "crimes at the top" is any mention of feminist research in rural vicinities.

What would Bill say is also missing from the rural critical criminological project?

Unfortunately, this is an empirical question that can never be adequately answered empirically due to his untimely death. On the other hand, given his sophisticated understanding of the state and the amount of work he devoted to this topic, it is fair to speculate that he would call for new ways of understanding how the state shapes rural communities. He would be right if he did because today, criminologists from a variety of backgrounds could easily be accused of failing

"to take the state seriously" (Coleman, Sim, Tombs and Whyte 2009).6 Going back to the writings of radical scholars who helped influence me to become a "card carrying" critical criminologist in the mid 1980s, following the late Marxist scholar Ralph Miliband (1969), the state is defined here as consisting of "the government, the administration, the police, the judicial branch, the subcentral government, and parliamentary assemblies" (p. 54).

There are numerous sound reasons for critical criminologists revisiting the influence of the state, including many governments' ongoing war on civil rights, recent attempts in the U.S. to outlaw contraception, and the Canadian federal government's secret movement to eliminate same-sex marriage. There are other theoretical and political reasons for developing new theories of the state and law, some of which emphasize the role of gender, a factor that took a "back seat" in most of the early Marxist theories of law, including Bill's. For example, I and Molly

Dragiewicz (2013) contend that sophisticated accounts of the state are essential because it is

6 There are, however, some recent salient exceptions to this rule in the United Kingdom. Prime examples are Matthews' (2009) "refashioned" left realism and Hallsworth and Lea's (2011) perspective on a new state form they refer to as the "security state." 18 through the state that the position of men and women (regardless of whether they live in rural or urban communities) and their relationship with society is defined, institutionalized and challenged (MacKinnon 1989; Swyngedouw 1996). Furthermore, the state may not be entirely patriarchal, but there is ample evidence that it actively "does gender" while contributing to class divisions and racism and is a "significant vehicle of sexual and gender oppression and regulation" (Connell 1994, p. 147).

How should a rural critical criminology address the role of the state? Joe Donnermeyer and I (2008, 2014) assert that one answer to this question is found in British left realist's square of crime. The square consists of four interacting elements: victim, offender, state agencies (e.g., the police), and the public. Young (1992) best describes the social relationships between each point on the square:

It is the relationship between the police and the public which determines the efficacy of

policing, the relationship between the victim and the offender which determines the

impact of crime, the relationship between the state and the offender which is a major

factor in recidivism (p. 27).

The square of crime focuses simultaneously on the criminal behavior or action and on societal, including state, reactions to it. The square of crime also shows that the crime rates in many urban and rural communities are outcomes of four interrelated causes: (1) the causes of offending (e.g., unemployment and peer group membership); (2) factors that make victims vulnerable (e.g., lifestyles/routine activities); (3) the social conditions that influence public levels of control and tolerance; and (4) the social forces that propel agents of social control, such as the police (Young 1992, p. 30).

Space limitations preclude a detailed description, but it should be briefly noted that Joe and I (2014) also use the square of crime to provide conceptual sketches of more critical approaches to understanding rural drug use and distribution and agricultural crime. No one as of yet has tested hypotheses derived from our squares of crime, but hopefully someone will do so soon because the ever-expanding corpus of rural criminology is largely atheoretical

(Donnermeyer 2012). This problem could also be interpreted positively, but not for positivistic reasons. The good news is that there is plenty of room for other critical theories that address the relationship between the state, crime, law, and rural communities. To quote a statement made by

Bill and Majorie Zatz (1993) in the concluding chapter of their anthology Making Law: The

State, The Law, and Structural Contradictions, "Much work remains...." (p. 429).

Conclusions

Bill left his footprints on numerous exciting areas of critical inquiry and influenced many people to follow his lead. Admittedly, he was not the one mainly responsible for me becoming a rural critical criminologist. Joe Donnermeyer and my experiences in Athens, Ohio from

December 2000 to August 2004 are chiefly responsible. However, I hold myself solely accountable for any mistakes I made over the past 16 years. What Bill did for me, though, is help me become a critical criminologist. This was not done through reading his work or attending his many conference presentations. Nor was my intellectual and political transformation spawned by him being the first ever critical criminological President of the

American Society of Criminology (ASC) in 1988. Rather, it was Bill as a kind person that helped me turn the tide in November 1986 at the annual meetings of the ASC.

A few months prior to this event, I had a negative experience participating on a critical criminology panel at the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology conference in Winnipeg,

Canada.7 I vowed never to engage with critical criminology again, but as is often said, "Never say never." At the aforementioned ASC conference, I had the pleasure of being introduced to Bill by Christina Jacqueline-Johns in a hotel coffee shop. As then a Ph.D. student, I was in awe and rather intimidated. However, I soon felt at total ease after sitting down with him and Christina.

His words were sincere and supportive, and he motivated me to rethink my position on critical criminology. In a very short period of time, I rejected my rigid stance and my life radically changed after having a long conversation at the ASC conference hotel bar with Kathleen Daly,

Meda Chesney-Lind, Dorie Klein, and Besty Stanko. This pivotal point in my life inspired me to pursue my inner desire to do feminist work and to consider other ways of thinking critically about crime. I would not be doing what I am doing today without their kindness, collegiality, and compassion. Nonetheless, I probably would have never mustered up the courage to talk to them had it not been for the conversation I had with Bill and Christina.

The key point I am making here is one that all senior scholars should constantly keep in mind: Today's student could be tomorrow's colleague. And, this transition often starts with offering a few welcoming words and taking time away from one's busy schedule to talks to students seeking inspiration and support. My first step down a long critical criminological path was meeting Bill and I will never forget that life-changing occasion. I would be remiss, though, if I didn't give much credit to my good friend and colleague Marty Schwartz because he, too, played an instrumental role in returning me to critical criminology when I was finishing my dissertation in 1987. It was at the 1987 ASC conference where I met him and his sincere interest in my doctoral dissertation had a long lasting positive effect.

In conclusion, not only did Bill help shape contemporary rural critical criminology through his intellectual endeavours, but he also inspired scores of young scholars to reject

7 See DeKeseredy (2011) for more information on this event. 21 orthodox approaches to understanding crime, law, and social control. I often wonder where I would be and about the type of work I would be doing if I never had that chance meeting at the

1986 ASC conference.

References

Barclay, E., & Donnermeyer, J.F. (2007). Community and crime in rural Australia. In E. Barclay,

J.F. Donnermeyer, J. Scott, & R. Hogg (Eds.), Crime in rural Australia (pp. 44-54).

Annandale, NSW: Federation Press.

Barclay, E., Donnermeyer, J.F., & Jobes, P.C. (2004). The dark side of gemeinschaft. Crime

Prevention and Community Safety, 6, 7-22.

Barker, J. (2009). A typical female offender. In J. Barker (Ed.), Women in the criminal justice

system: A Canadian perspective (pp. 63-87). Toronto: Emond Montgomery.

Bourgois, P. (1995). In search of respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Brisman, A., McClanahan, B., & South, N. (2014). Toward a green-cultural criminology of "the

rural." Critical Criminology, 22, 479-494/

Brotherton, D.C., & Barrios, L. (2004). The almighty Latin king and queen nation: Street politics

and the transformation of a New York street gang. New York: Columbia University

Press.

Carrington, K. (2012). Corporate risk, mining camps and the political economy of knowledge. In

In K. Carrington, M. Ball, E. O'Brien, & J.M. Tauri (Eds.), Crime, justice and social

democracy: International perspectives (pp. 295-311). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Carrington, K., Donnermeyer, J.F., & DeKeseredy, W.S. (2014). Intersectionality, rural

criminology, and re-imaging the boundaries of critical criminology. Critical Criminology,

22, 463-477.

Carrington, K., Hogg, R., & McIntosh, A. (2011). The resource boom's underbelly: The

criminological impact of mining development. Australia & New Zealand Journal of

Criminology, 44, 335-354.

Carrington, K., Hogg, R., McIntosh, A., & Scott, J. (2012). Crime talk: FIFO workers and

cultural conflict on the mining boom frontier. Australian Humanities Review, 53, 1-15.

Carrington, K., & Hogg, R. (2012). History of critical criminology in Australia. In W.S.

DeKeseredy & M. Dragiewicz (Ed.), Routledge handbook of critical criminology (pp. 46-

60). London: Routledge.

Chakraborti, N., & Garland, J. (Eds.). (2004). Rural racism. Portland, OR: Willan.

Chambliss, W.J. (1964). A sociological analysis of the law of vagrancy. Social Problems, 12, 46-

67.

Chambliss, W.J. (1973a). The saints and roughnecks. Society, 11, 22-31.

Chambliss, W.J. (1973b). Elites and the creation of criminal law. In W. Chambliss (Ed.),

Sociological readings in the conflict perspective (pp. 430-444). Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley.

Chambliss, W.J. (1975). The political economy of crime: A comparative study of Nigeria and the

USA. In I. Taylor, P. Walton, & J. Young (eds.), Critical Criminology (pp. 167-180).

London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Chambliss, W.J. (1978). On the take: From petty crooks to presidents. Bloomington: Indiana

University Press.

Chambliss, W.J. (1988). On the take: From petty crooks to presidents (2nd ed.). Bloomington:

Indiana University Press.

Chambliss, W.J. (1994). Policing the ghetto underclass: The politics of law and law enforcement.

Social Problems, 4, 177-194.

Chambliss, W.J. (1995). Another lost war: The costs and consequences of drug prohibition.

Social Justice, 22, 101-124.

Chambliss, W.J., & Seidman, R. (1971). Law, order, and power. New York: Addison-Wesley.

Chesney-Lind, M., & Pasko, L. (2013). The female offender: Girls, women, and crime (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Coleman, R., Sim, J., Tombs, S., Whyte, D. (2009). Introduction: State, power, crime. In R.

Coleman, J. Sim, S. Tombs, & D. Whyte (Eds.), State, power, crime (pp. 1-19). London:

Sage.

Connell, R.W. (1994). The state, gender, and sexual politics: Theory and appraisal. In H.L.

Radtke & H.J. Stam (Eds.), Power/gender (pp. 138-154). London: Sage.

Coventry, G., & Palmer, D. (2008). Toward constituting a critical criminology for Australia. In

T. Anthony & C. Cunneen (Eds.), The critical criminology companion (pp. 303-314).

Sydney, Aus: Hawkins Press.

Crenshaw, K. (2000). The intersectionality of race and gender discrimination. Retrieved June 10,

2011 from www.isiswomen.org/womenet/lists/apgr-list/archive/msg00013.html.

Currie, D.H., & MacLean, B.D. (1993). Preface. In D.H. Currie & B.D. MacLean (Eds.), Social

inequality, social justice (pp. 5-6). Vancouver, BC: Collective Press.

Currie, E. (1985). Confronting crime: An American challenge. New York: Pantheon.

Currie, E. (2009). The roots of danger: Violent crime in global perspective. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

Currie, E. (2012). Violence and social policy. In W.S. DeKeseredy & M. Dragiewicz (Eds.),

Routledge handbook of critical criminology (pp. 465-475). London: Routledge.

Dagg, A.I, & Harding, L.E. (2012). Human evolution and male aggression: Debunking the myth

of man and ape. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press. d'Eaubonne, F. (1974). Feminism ou la mort. Paris: Horay.

DeKeseredy, W.S. (1988). Woman abuse in dating relationships: The relevance of social support

theory. Journal of Family Violence, 3, 1-13.

DeKeseredy, W.S. (2011). Contemporary critical criminology. London: Routledge.

DeKeseredy, W.S. (2013). Biology, culture and economics: A new evolutionary take on men and

violence. Literary Review of Canada, 21, 28-29.

DeKeseredy, W.S. (2015). New directions in feminist understandings of rural crime. Journal of

Rural Studies, 39, 180-187.

DeKeseredy, W.S. (in press). Critical criminology: From roots to present. In E. Carrabine, N.

South, & A. Brisman (eds.), The Routledge companion to criminological theory and

concepts. London: Routledge.

DeKeseredy, W.S., & Donnermeyer, J.F. (2013). Thinking critically about rural crime: Toward

the development of a new left realist perspective. In S. Winlow & R. Atkinson (Eds.),

New directions in crime and deviancy (pp. 206-222). London: Routledge.

DeKeseredy, W. S., Donnermeyer, J. F., Schwartz, M. D., Tunnell, K. D., & Hall, M. (2007).

Thinking critically about rural gender relations: Toward a rural masculinity crisis/male

peer support model of separation/divorce sexual assault. Critical Criminology, 15, 295-

311.

DeKeseredy, W.S., & Dragiewicz, M. (2013). Gaps in knowledge and emerging areas in gender

and crime studies. In C.M. Renzetti, S.L. Miller, & A.R. Gover (Eds.), Routledge

international handbook of crime and gender studies (pp. 297-307). London: Routledge.

DeKeseredy, W.S., Ellis, E., & Alvi, S. (2005). Deviance and Crime: Theory, research and

policy. Cincinnati: LexisNexis.

DeKeseredy, W.S., Muzzatti, S.L., & Donnermeyer, J.F. (2014). Mad men in bib overalls:

Media's Horrification and pornification of rural culture. Critical Criminology, 22, 179-

197.

DeKeseredy, W.S., & Rennison, C.M. (2013). Comparing female victims of separation/divorce

assault across geographical regions. International Journal for Crime and Justice, 2, 65-

81.

DeKeseredy, W.S., & Schwartz, M.D. (2008). Separation/divorce sexual assault in rural Ohio:

Survivors' perceptions. Journal of Preventions & Interventions in the Community, 36,

105-119.

DeKeseredy, W.S., & Schwartz, M.D. (2009). Dangerous exits: Escaping abusive relationships

in rural America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

DeKeseredy, W.S., & Schwartz, M.D. (2013). Male peer support and violence against women:

The history and verification of a theory. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

DeKeseredy, W.S., Schwartz, M.D., Fagen, D., & Hall, M. (2006). Separation/divorce sexual

assault: The contribution of male peer support. Feminist Criminology, 1, 228-250.

Donnermeyer, J.F., & DeKeseredy, W.S. (2008). Toward a rural critical criminology. Southern

Rural Sociology, 23, 4-28.

Donnermeyer, J.F. (2012). Rural crime and critical criminology. In W.S. DeKeseredy & M.

Dragiewicz (Eds.), Routledge handbook of critical criminology (pp. 290-302). London:

Routledge.

Donnermeyer, J.F. (Ed.). (2016). Routledge International Handbook of Rural Criminology.

London: Routledge.

Donnermeyer, J.F., Barclay, E., & Mears, D.P. (2011). Policing agricultural crime. In R.I.

Mawby & R. Yarwood (Eds.), Rural policing and policing the rural: A constable

countryside (pp. 193-204). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Donnermeyer, J.F., & DeKeseredy, W.S. (2014). Rural criminology. London: Routledge.

Donnermeyer, J. F., Jobes, P., & Barclay, E. (2006). Rural crime, poverty, and community. In

W.S. DeKeseredy & B. Perry (Eds.), Advancing critical criminology: Theory and

application (pp. 199-218). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Flavin, J. & Artz, L. (2013). Understanding women, gender, and crime. In C.M. Renzetti, S.L.

Miller, & A.R. Gover (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of crime and gender

studies (pp. 9-35). London: Routledge.

Friedrichs, D.O., & Rothe, D.L. (2012). Crimes of the powerful: White-collar crime and beyond.

In W.S. DeKeseredy & M. Dragiewicz (Eds.), Routledge handbook of critical

criminology (pp. 241-251). London: Routledge.

Gagne, P.L. (1992). Appalachian women: Violence and social control. Journal of Contemporary

Ethnography, 20, 387-415.

Gagne, P.L. (1996). Identity, strategy, and identity politics: Clemency for battered women who

kill. Social Problems, 43, 77-93.

Garcia-Moreno, C., Jansen, A.F.M.H., Ellsberg, M. Heise, L., & Watts, C. (2005). WHO multi-

country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women: Initial results on

prevalence, health outcomes, and women’s responses. Geneva: World Health

Organization.

Garriot, W. (2011). Policing methamphetamine: Narcopolitics in rural America. New York:

New York University Press.

Gelsthorpe, L., & Morris, A. (1988). Feminism and criminology in Britain. British Journal of

Criminology, 28, 93-110.

Gilfus, M.E., Fineran, S., Cohan, D.J., Jensen, S.A., Hartwick, L., & Spath, R. (1999). Research

on violence against women: Creating survivor-informed collaborations. Violence Against

Women, 5, 1194-1212.

Goffman, A. (2014). On the run: Fugitive life in an American city. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Grant, J. (2008). Charting women's journeys: From addiction to recovery. Lanham, MD:

Lexington.

Hallsworth, S., & Lea, J. (2011). Reconstructing Leviathan: Emerging contours of the security

state. Theoretical Criminology, 15, 141-157.

Harvey, L. (2014). Critical ethnography. Retrieved October 2, 2015 from

http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/socialresearch/criticalethnography.htm.

Henry, S. (1999). Is left realism a useful theory for addressing the problems of crime?: No. In

J.R. Fuller & E.W. Hickey (Eds.), Controversial issues in criminology (pp. 137-144).

Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Hobbs, F., & Stoops, N. (2002). Demographic trends in the 20th century. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Government Printing Office.

Johnson, H. Ollus, N., & Nevala, S. (2008). Violence against women: An international

perspective. New York: Springer.

Katz, J., & Chambliss, W.J. (1991). Biology and crime. In J.F. Sheley (Ed.), Criminology: A

contemporary handbook (pp. 245-271). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Krug, E., Dahlberg, E.L., & Mercy, J. et al. (2002). World report on violence and health.

Geneva: World Health Organization.

Kubrin, C., Stuckey, T.D., & Krohn, M.D. (2009). Researching theories of crime and deviance.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Laub, J.H. (1983). Patterns of offending in urban and rural areas. Journal of Criminal Justice, 11,

129-142.

Lea, J., & Young, J. (1984). What is to be done about law and order? New York: Penguin.

Lee, M.R. (2008). Civic community in the hinterland: Toward a theory of rural social structure

and violence. Criminology, 46, 447-478.

Lemert, E.M. (1951). Social pathology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

MacKinnon, C.A. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Madison, D.S. (2012). Critical ethnography: Method, ethics, and performance (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Matthews, R. (2009). Beyond "so what?" criminology: Rediscovering realism. Theoretical

Criminology, 13, 341-362.

Mawby, R.I., & Yarwood, R. (Eds.). (2011). Rural policing and policing the rural: A constable

countryside? Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Messerschmidt, J.W. (1986). Capitalism, patriarchy, and crime: Toward a socialist feminist

criminology. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.

Messerschmidt, J.W. (1993). Masculinities and crime: Critique and reconceptualization.

Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield.

Messerschmidt, J.W. (2014). Crime as structured action: Doing masculinities, race, class,

sexuality, and crime. Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield.

Messerschmidt, J., & Tomsen, S. (2012). Masculinities. In W.S. DeKeseredy & M. Dragiewicz

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of critical criminology (pp. 172-185). London: Routledge.

Michalowski, R.J. (1996). Critical criminology and the critique of domination: The story of an

intellectual movement. Critical Criminology, 1, 9-16.

Miliband, R. (1969). The state in capitalist society: The analysis of the western system of power.

London: Quartet.

Mills, C.W. (1943). The professional ideology of social pathologists. American Journal of

Sociology, 49, 165-180.

Morash, M. & Yingling, J. (2012). Adult women in conflict with the law. In W.S. DeKeseredy &

M. Dragiewicz (Eds.), Routledge handbook of critical criminology (pp. 401-412).

London: Routledge.

Mullins, C.W. (2009). We are going to rape you and taste Tutsi women. British Journal of

Criminology, 49, 719-735.

Niehoff, D. (2014). Not hardwired: The complex neurobiology of sex differences in violence.

Violence and Gender, 1, 19-24.

Osgood, D.W., & Chambers, J.M. (2000). Social disorganization outside the metropolis: An

analysis of rural youth violence. Criminology, 38, 81-116.

Osgood, D.W., & Chambers, J.M. (2003). Community correlates of rural youth violence.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Owen, S. (2012). Integrated response policy to domestic violence in NSW: A critical analysis.

Doctoral dissertation, School of Justice, Queensland University of Technology.

Perry, B. (2009). Policing race and place in Indian country. Lanham, MD: Lexington.

Rennison, C.M., DeKeseredy, W.S., & Dragiewicz, M. (2012). Urban, suburban, and rural

variations in separation/divorce rape/sexual assault: Results from the National Crime

Victimization Survey. Feminist Criminology, 7, 282-297.

Rennison, C.M., DeKeseredy, W.S., & Dragiewicz, M. (2013). Intimate relationship status

variations in violence against women: Urban, suburban, and rural differences. Violence

Against Women, 19, 1312-1330.

Renzetti, C.M. (2013). Feminist criminology. London: Routledge.

Sampson, R.J. (2102). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sampson, R.J. (2013). The place of context: A theory and strategy for criminology's hard

problems. Criminology, 51, 1-31.

Sampson, R.J., & Groves, W.B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social

disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774-802.

Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A

multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918-924.

Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W., & Earls, F. (1998). Neighborhood collective efficacy: Does it

help reduce violence? Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Schur, E.M. (1984). Labeling women deviant: Gender, stigma, and social control. Philadelphia:

Temple University Press.

Scott, J., & Jobes, P. (2007). Policing of rural Australia. In E. Barclay, J.F. Donnermeyer, J.

Scott, & R. Hogg (Eds.), Crime in rural Australia (pp. 127-137). Annandale, NSW,

Australia: Federation Press.

Siegel, L., & McCormick, C. (2012). Criminology in Canada: Theories, patterns, and typologies

(6th ed.). Toronto: Nelson.

Swift, D. (2015). Battling for survival: The struggles of teenage girls in rural New Zealand.

Paper presented at the Inaugural Asia-Pacific Conference on Gendered Violence and

Violations, Sydney, AU.

Swyngedouw, E. (1996). Reconstructing citizenship, the re-scaling of the state and the new

authoritarianism: Closing the Belgian mines. Urban Studies, 33, 499-521.

Tauri, J.M. (2013). Indigenous critique of authoritarian criminology. In K. Carrington, M. Ball,

E. O'Brien, & J.M. Tauri (Eds.), Crime, justice and social democracy: International

perspectives (pp. 217-233). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Taylor, I., Walton, P., & Young, J. (Eds.). (1975). Critical criminology. London: Routledge &

Kegan Paul.

Thomas, J. (1993). Critical ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Venkatesh, S. (2000). American project: The rise and fall of the modern ghetto. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Wacquant, L. (1997). Three pernicious premises in the study of the American ghetto.

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, July, 341-353.

Walters, R. (2004). Criminology and genetically modified food. British Journal of Criminology,

44, 151-167.

Walters, R. (2006). Crime, agriculture and the exploitation of hunger. British Journal of

Criminology, 46, 26-45.

Websdale, N. (1998). Rural woman battering and the justice system: An ethnography. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Weisheit, R.A., Falcone, D.N., & Wells, L.E. (2006). Crime and policing in rural and small-

town America (3rd ed.). Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press.

White, R., & Heckenberg, D. (2014). Green criminology: An introduction to the study of

environmental harm. London: Routledge.

Wood, D. (1990). A critique of the urban focus in criminology: The need for a realist view of

rural working class crime. Burnaby BC: School of Criminology, Simon Fraser

University.

Young, J. (1992). Ten points of realism. In J. Young & R. Matthews (Eds.), Rethinking

criminology: The realist debate (pp. 24-68). London: Sage.

Zatz, M.S., & Chambliss, W.J. (1993). Future directions. In W.J. Chambliss & M.S. Zatz (Eds.),

Making law: The state, the law, and structural contradictions (pp. 423-430).

Bloomington: Indiana University Press.