A Practical Critique of Social-Scientific Reason in the Historical Study of Crime
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A Practical Critique of Social-Scientific Reason in the Historical Study of Crime The Politics of Historical Criminology and its Place in the Historiography of Crime and Criminal Justice Roberto Catello 0000-0002-0812-5540 DR-PHILART – Doctor of Philosophy – Arts August 2019 School of Social and Political Sciences The University of Melbourne Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy ~ 1 ~ Abstract Significant conceptual, professional and institutional developments have taken place over the last fifty years or so at the crossroad of criminology and history that deserve critical scrutiny and examination. From the consolidation of a historiography of crime and criminal justice to the emergence of a historical criminology, the shaping of a historical dimension to the study of crime signals at once a ‘historical turn’ in criminology and a social-scientific turn in historical scholarship. Though historical sociology provides a plausible justification for both of these – incomplete – turns through the notion of a historical social science – which can be defined as a movement towards history ‘as’ social science and a movement towards history ‘in’ social science – it is analytically limiting to reduce crime historians and historical criminologists to sociological objects. Instead, it is possible to make sense of those who participate in the historical study of crime as political subjects and of crime histories and criminological histories as forms of political practice and modes of political participation. Borrowing from Hans-Georg Gadamer’s proposal for a social science modelled on the basis of Aristotelian practical philosophy, the thesis advances a practical critique of social-scientific reason in the historical study of crime and explores historical criminology’s current hopes in the historiography of crime and criminal justice. An intellectual field and academic space decidedly theoretical, that is, apolitical and ‘indifferent to the present’, the historical study of crime is presently witnessing the emergence of a historical criminology that claims to be conductive to practical knowledge, to knowledge that is present-oriented and politically useful. In the context of a rather ambiguous encounter between crime historians and historical criminologists, then, this thesis develops a practical discourse around historical criminology with the aim of problematizing the uses of history for the study of crime and ~ 2 ~ of casting additional light on some of the social and political implications of doing social science while making use of history. ~ 3 ~ This is to certify that: i. The thesis comprises only my original work towards the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, ii. Due acknowledgment has been made in the text to all other material used, iii. The thesis is less than 100,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, maps, bibliographies and appendices. Roberto Catello ~ 4 ~ Acknowledgments This thesis could not have possibly come to fruition without the ever-present support of friends and family, here in Australia and overseas, and without the vital insights of my supervisors Alison Young, John Fitzgerald and Peter Rush. PhD theses represent more than individual achievements; they are the end-product of years of intellectual consultations, confrontations and debates without which it would be impossible to make any serious contribution to knowledge. The School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Melbourne has been a phenomenal forum for the exchange and discussion of ideas and I could not have hoped for a kinder and more appreciative venue for a research journey as uncertain as a PhD than the one I found myself in here in Melbourne. I thank members past and present of the criminology PhD cohort at the university for providing valuable comments and for engaging in regular dialogue over the years, and I am particularly thankful to my principal supervisor Alison Young for giving me the opportunity to research what she correctly defined as ‘the historical turn’ in criminology. ~ 5 ~ Table of Contents Introduction 9-26 … 1. A Practical Rationale for Social Science 1.1 The Place of Historical Criminology in the Study of Crime 30-40 1.2 Social Science through the Lens of Aristotelian Practical Philosophy 40-59 1.3 Theoria and Praxis in Ancient Greece 59-68 1.4 An Example of Practico-Philosophical Social Science 68-72 1.5 Technological Dreams and Emancipatory Utopias 72-79 … 2. Historical Social Science 2.1 Modern Knowledge as Active Knowledge 82-88 2.2 A Historical Social-scientific Path for Historical Criminology 88-90 2.3 On the Development of Historical Social Science 90-96 2.4 Historical Social Science as Mode of Action 96-105 2.5 Social Science as Techne and Praxis 105-111 … 3. The Practical and the Social in the Historical Study of Crime 3.1 The Historiography of Crime and Criminal Justice and its Social History 114-120 3.2 A Practical Hypothesis regarding the Historical Study of Crime 120-126 3.3 Febvre and the Politics of Social History 126-132 3.4 The Historical Criminologist as Political Subject 132-135 3.5 Between Crime History and Historical Criminology 135-141 … ~ 6 ~ 4. Historical Criminology and its Dialogue with Crime History 4.1 The Province of Historical Criminology Determined 143-151 4.2 Criminological Histories of the Past 151-161 4.3 Theory and Practice in the Eyes of Crime Historians 161-175 … 5. Criminological Histories and Histories of the Present 5.1 The Criminological History of Radzinowicz 176-184 5.2 A Brief Note on Present-centredness 184-188 5.3 Foucault’s History of the Present 188-202 5.4 In Search of Historical Criminology 202-208 … 6. History as Past Politics, Politics as Present History 6.1 The Arche of Western Historiography 212-215 6.2 History and Enlightenment 215-219 6.3 History as Science 219-228 6.4 Historicity in Historiography 228-232 6.5 Oakeshott on History and the Practical Past 232-237 6.7 Croce’s Practical Philosophy of History 237-242 6.8 New History and the Science of the Present 242-246 6.9 The Iron Cage of History Specializations 246-258 … Conclusion 259-266 Bibliography 267- 299 ~ 7 ~ The present is neither a given nor an arbitrary designation of “now”, that momentary experience of temporality which vanishes as soon as we name it. The present is another name for the political organization of existence…The present is both fate and choice, history and politics. Sheldon Wolin, The Presence of the Past If rhetoric is the politics of discourse, as discourse itself is the politics of language, then there is no such thing as politically innocent historiography. Hayden White, Rhetoric and History ~ 8 ~ Introduction Beginning in the second half of the 20th century, the historical study of crime has grown into a crowded intellectual site for the production of knowledge and subjectivity in academia. The ‘crime historian’, an unknown label in historical scholarship before World War II, is today an increasingly recognized professorial and academic specialization within university settings and research institutes. Since the opening of the postgraduate Centre for Social History at the University of Warwick in 1968, writing the history of crime has become a transcontinental activity. Conventionally said to have been sparked by the intersecting of historical research and social theory at the hands of British Marxists historians like E. P. Thompson, the historical study of crime has comfortably found its ways into university curricula, international conferences and intellectual fora. A remarkable contribution to our knowledge of the past, producing ‘crime histories’ is becoming, to a rising number of historians, a familiar way of performing the present. Thinking historically about crime, however, is not a history specialization but a practice as old as the modern study of crime. In fact, only when the criminalists of the late 19th century defined crime as a social phenomenon and no longer as a legal entity did the history of crime become a reality separated from the history of criminal law and the history of civilization. At the same time, it was only when the social sciences officially admitted their dependency on historical thinking in the 1960s that the historical study of crime came to be widely appreciated as an academic and professional practice. A scenario in which the historical study of crime becomes fully monopolized by crime historians and substantially unaffected by a criminological counterpart, then, should probably arouse suspicion, as it would be unreasonable not to think of a ‘hybrid’ area of study like the history of crime as a fundamentally cooperative and collaborative space. Though studying crime historically appears as an interdisciplinary endeavour at its core, there is little ~ 9 ~ controversy in saying that, compared to the crime historian, the ‘historical criminologist’ has been markedly less successful at mastering the interaction between historical and social-scientific thinking that has underpinned the development of the historical study of crime since the second half of the 20th century. In other words, ‘historical criminology’ is still a study area in the making and, while the British Crime Historians have been meeting regularly since 2008, the historical criminologist remains an uncertain and dubious kind of academic agency lacking a professional code of conduct and a stable institutionalized presence worldwide. This thesis a historico-philosophical investigation into the hopes for a historical criminology in the present meant to problematize the ‘use of history’ for the study of crime. Through a critique of social-scientific reason in the historical study of crime inspired by Hans-Georg Gadamer’s critical writings on the human sciences and on technical rationality in the scientific age like Reason in the Age of Science (1981) and Praise of Theory (1998), I aim to develop a practical discourse around historical criminology.