Criminal Justice Education in British Columbia a Political Perspective
CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA A POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE
By
BRUCE LANE ARNOLD
B.A., University of British Columbia, 1975
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIRE•
MENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia
We accept this thesis as conforming
to the required standard
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
September 1984
(c)Bruce Lane Arnold, 1984 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.
BRUCE L. ARNOLD
Department of ANTHROPOLOGY & SOCIOLOGY
The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3
Date JW^^ H,tVf
ABSTRACT
This study was designed to investigate the ideological context of criminology in British Columbia. A sample of 45 criminologists was interviewed in order to establish the ideological orientation of their teaching, research, publishing, and consulting involvements. In addition, the in- depth interviews served to document the constraints criminologists experience due to their ideological orientation.
The interview results show that criminology in British Columbia is dominated by liberal ideology and that radical perspectives are restricted through "gate-keeping" devices such as funding, hiring, and publishing restrictions.
By clarifying its ideological nature, criminology can be understood as a political phenomenon, which may explain the widespread reluctance to critically reflect on the development of criminal justice education. Gramsci's view of the hegemonic function of intellectuals provides an historical and theoretical framework for examining the ideological-political traditions which influence contemporary criminology in British
Columbia. This framework enables, study of the relationship between criminology and the capitalist state's growing need for a technically sophisticated knowledge-base that will both contain increasing crime rates and maintain ideological hegemony. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to those who have been a significant part of the thesis process. This would begin with R.S. Ratner who chaired my thesis committee. His constant encouragement, enthusiasm, and constructive thoughts, enriched this thesis. J.L. McMullan provided rigorous evaluations and inspired me to explore the impact of historical forces on contemporary criminology. H. Jacobson has continually encouraged my intellectual exploration of gender related politics in a critically thoughtful manner. All of my thesis committee have had a catalytic effect in the translation of this research toward my own praxis.
There have been others who are worthy of acknowledgement in the production of this thesis. Brian Burtch has continually encouraged me to extend my thinking processes through writing. Barbara Hovind reminded me of my purpose in the thesis when it was most needed. Keith Warriner generously gave of his limited time to share his expertise with computer technology. In addition, I would like to express my gratitude to those criminologists whom I interviewed and who were most helpful and generous with sharing their experiences and thoughts regarding the phenomenon of criminal justice education in British Columbia. i v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
CONTENTS iv
CHAPTER ONE: THE PHENOMENON OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION
Introduction 1
Problematics to be Researched . 2
Method of Research and Analysis 5
CHAPTER TWO: HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION
Introduction 10
Early Foundations of Modern Criminology 12
Pioneers of Early Liberal Ideology 13
The Reorganization of Feudal Justice and Punishment .. 15
The Humanizing of the CJS and Classical Criminology . . 16
The Positivist School, the Advent of Technocracy, and Liberal Hegemony . 21
Increased CJS Education and Sociological Paradigms ... 24
Labelling Theory, Critical Criminology, and CJS Higher Education 26
Criminal Justice Education in Canada 36
CHAPTER THREE: THEORIES OF THE CAPITALIST STATE
Pluralist-DemocratiIntroduction c Theories of the State 484 V
Instrumentalist Theories of the State 54
Structuralist Theories of the State 58
Gramsci's Theory of the State , 65
CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The Sample 74
The Questionnaire Schedule 77
The Interviews 80
Ethics 80
Quantifying Data 82
Data Analysis 86
CHAPTER FIVE: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction 87
Criminology and Teaching Ideology 88
Ideology and Research 99
Ideology and Publishing 102
Ideology and Consulting or Board Positions 105
Overview of Ideological Inconsistencies 107
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS . 111
TABLES
Table I: Structure of Theories of the Capitalist .... 46 State
Table II: Respondents' Institutional Affiliation .... 77
Table III: Criminology & Teaching Ideology 89
Table IV: Ideology & Institutional Affiliation ...... 90 vi
Table V: Ideology & Course Content on Racism 92
Table VI: Ideology & Course Content on Sexism 94
Table VII: Ideology & Course Content on Imperialism . 96
Table VIII: Ideology & Course Content on Classism ... 98
Table IX: Teaching Ideology & Research Focus ...... 100
Table X: Ideology & Research Constraints 101
Table XI: Ideology & Publication Orientation 103
Table XII: Ideology & Publication Constraints 104
Table XIII: Ideology & Consulting Constraints 106
Table XIV: Ideology & Board Positions 107
Table XV: Ideological Inconsistencies 108
APPENDIX A: Letter of Introduction 123
APPENDIX B: Interview Schedule 124
APPENDIX C: Code Book 128
BIBLIOGRAPHY 138 1
CHAPTER ONE
The Phenomenon of Criminal Justice Education
Introduction
Considerable public concern has been generated by the increasing rates of criminal activity in Canada (Taylor, 1983).
The state has responded to this phenomenon by expanding its
Criminal Justice System (CJS) in order to understand, deter, treat, and punish criminal behaviour. In recent years, for example, modern governments have relied increasingly upon criminologists to provide a technocratic knowledge base as a tool for social control (Piatt, 1975, p.101). Quinney (1979) is one of many observers who describes criminology as a cluster of fields which all bear some relation to crime and its control
(p.447). It consists of academics who function primarily as teachers, researchers, and writers who are drawn from sociology, law, psychology, social work, and business. Their activities include the training of academic and vocational personnel for deployment in CJS branches, research, and government and private consulting firms. Thus, increased demands for, and usages of, criminological knowledge in Canada have resulted in an unprecedented explosion of criminal justice educational resources and educators, as evidenced by the development of four major Centres of Criminology, college and
1 The four major centres at Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, and Burnaby have been constructed since the mid-1960's. 2 university courses, and CJS personnel training centres.1 They play a significant role in the defining and managing of
justice. Through their involvements in the development and
implementation of administrative policies, educators have a direct effect on the state's usages of legal power. Moreover,
through their teaching and research involvements, they direct public attitudes and definitions of crime, deviancy, and the manner in which the state defines and deals with crime.
Therefore, criminologists are becoming increasingly influential
in the construction and management of social relations in
Canada.
Advocates of liberal criminology presume that the CJS
functions as the legal apparatus of the state with the general
consent of the population. In this view, the CJS functions so
that crime may be controlled, thereby facilitating the ordering
of justice. Therefore, the tremendous expansion of criminal
justice education is assumed to be a welcome addition to the
forces for assisting in the realization of this mandate.
Nevertheless, regardless of CJS reforms and expansion, Canadian
justice continues to be thwarted by rising crime rates (Taylor,
1983) and inconsistent and or contradictory CJS practices
(e.g. access, arrest, sentencing, etc.). Such injustices
generally tend to have greater effect on women (e.g. Clark &
Lewis, 1977), racial minorities (e.g. Hagan, 1974), and
members of lower socio-economic groups in general (e.g. Goff &
Reasons, 1 978) . 3
Problematics to be Researched
The central concern of this thesis is to document and clarify the ideological and therefore political nature of criminology, as practiced in an advanced contemporary
capitalist state - specifically, -the province of British
Columbia in Canada. Criminologists are generally members of
the growing numbers of technocrats who are employed and
regulated by the Canadian capitalist state for purposes of
social control. These personnel are generally presumed to be
value-free due to the scientific nature of their occupations.
Nevertheless, Gramsci (1971) and Gorz (1976) are two critical
thinkers who point out that science and technology are not
independent of the dominant ideology. Instead, they argue that
intellectuals, through their technocratic functions, play a
central role in the reproduction and legitimation of capitalist
social relations thereby participating in the accumulation of
capital. Criminologists, in this view, would not be value-
free, but would have distinct class biases affecting their
participation in the social control apparatus. Indeed, their
implicit and explicit use of liberal ideology results in an
acceptance of capitalist social systems as universally sound.
Challenging the conventional perception of intellectuals as
objective and unbiased, Gramsci (1971) queried: "Are
intellectuals an autonomous and independent group, or does
every social group have its own particular specialized category
of intellectuals? (p.5)". 4
Following from Ratner's (1984) political economy perspective which illuminates the liberal content of the criminological enterprise in Canada, this research will question the value-free presumptions of criminology and examine its ideological content. The Schwendingers (1975) are representative of radical criminologists who illustrate linkages between mainstream criminology and the coercive and ideological social control needs of capitalism. Considering that capitalist socio-economic systems are structured in terms of inequalities and scarcities, the inability of their criminal justice systems to deter crime and provide equal justice is not suprising. In other words, injustices cannot be effectively understood nor managed within the ideological and material panoply of liberalism; e.g., treatment, decarceration, diversion, victimization, due process of law guarantees, and increased higher education for CJS personnel. But mainstream criminology is not devoid of humanistic concerns; in fact, liberal humanism has played an important role in the development of criminal justice; e.g., elimination of corporal punishment in prisons, improvement of jail conditions, pardons, and increased police protection for battered and sexually assaulted women. Even so, criminology is not a value-free or independent enterprise that is equally concerned for all fractions of society. Instead, as a part of a capitalist apparatus for social control, most criminologists' work is influenced by liberalism and its underlying political biases, i.e., classism, sexism, racism, and international domination 5
(Schwendinger & Schwendinger, 1975, Taylor et al., 1973). This is not to assume that criminologists are ideologically and politically homogenous. In fact, following from Gramsci's
(1971) illustration of the political function of intellectuals, it is inevitable that the • ideological role of criminologists should engender conflict and political struggles between radical and mainstream adherents. This is the phenomenon that
Gramsci refers to as the struggle for hegemony between
"organic" intellectuals. This thesis looks at a particular feature of mainstream criminology intellectuals - their failure to critically reflect on the underlying ideological-political character of their discipline. As will be illustrated, such reluctance stems from the liberal propensity to define social problems in expeditious and pragmatic terms, rather than in terms of structural inequalities which require radical solutions for their extirpation.
Piatt (1975) outlines the specific characteristics of liberal criminology which encompass its ideological-political content. They are:
1. State (legalistic) definitions of crime 2. Reformist orientations 3. Pragmatic concerns 4. Technocratically oriented scholarship 5. Work as agency-regulated 6. Academic complicity with agency and mainstream perspectives
It is by demonstrating these characteristics that the
ideological-political content of criminology in British
Columbia can be revealed. The activities of liberal and 6 conservative criminologists (justice model advocates) may be expected to reflect the above characteristics while critical/radical criminologists will not, instead favouring perspectives that draw upon larger socio-economic issues to explain crime and social control phenomena. Considering that
Gramsci (1971) and Gorz (1976) underscore the state's regulation of knowledge, given its political consequences, it may be supposed that radical criminologists encounter ideological constraints and that this may induce ideological
inconsistencies in their activities. For example, their freedom to promote radical and counter-hegemonic ideas may be restricted to teaching activities in the classroom, but they may bridle their radical enthusiasms when it comes to research and publication. Ultimately, such ideological constraints demonstrate the political bias of criminology as an
intellectual and technocratic enterprise for reproducing the hegemony of social relations essential to capitalism.
Methods of Research and Analysis
To date, there has been little empirical research done on criminal justice education in Canada which can be used to
substantiate its political content (Ratner & McMullan, 1982).
Therefore, this thesis is designed to investigate, in a
practical manner, the underlying political dynamics of
criminology and its recent expansion. The thesis is organized
in the following manner: 7
1. An historical outline of the development of liberal intellectuals as they relate to criminal justice education. 2. A brief review of theories of the capitalist state. 3. An empirical study of criminologists in British Columbia.
It is not the intention of this thesis to provide an encyclopedic examination of the above since such a study would warrant resources beyond the scope of this endeavour. However, the thesis does aim to clarify, in broad outline, the political dynamics of criminal justice education in British Columbia, thereby laying the groundwork for future research on the role of intellectuals in establishing, perpetuating, and de•
stabilizing ideological hegemony in the contemporary Canadian
state.
Chapter Two provides a brief outline of the history of
liberalism in order to delineate the role of intellectuals in
its development. The primary concern in this chapter is to
identify the traditional roots of liberal criminology. From
such a historical perspective, the essential relationship
between liberal ideology, criminology, social control, and capitalism is traced. The historical framework allows for an
understanding of the ideological and therefore political
function of intellectuals in capitalist infra-structures such
as the criminal justice system. In addition, it identifies the
historical struggle between ideological fractions and the
dominance of liberalism throughout the 20th century, leading up
to the origins of British Columbia criminology. 8
Chapter Three concerns itself with establishing a theoretical framework that provides an explanation for the political contributions of intellectuals in the development of capitalist infra-structures. As the basis for such a conceptual framework, this chapter will briefly outline liberal and neo-marxist theories of the capitalist state. Such an outline is not intended to produce a systematic or in-depth analysis of these theories. Instead, the outline will serve as a framework for demonstrating the usages of Gramsci's views of intellectuals in examining the political functions of criminologists in British Columbia. His focus on intellectuals in political struggle addresses the importance of the historical development of the intelligentsia vis-a-vis capitalist hegemony. In pointing out that intellectuals have never functioned outside political processes, Gramsci links their political function through their affiliation and regulation by the state. His concept of the "integral state" moves beyond liberal-democratic and neo-marxist accounts of state apparatuses and develops a non-sectarian framework for linking knowledge, education, ideology, and political or hegemonic struggle with organizing social relations.
Therefore, Gramsci's political framework provides a valuable tool for explicating the underlying politics of criminology.
Chapter Four focusses on the empirical study of British
Columbia criminologists. A major part of this thesis is to empirically establish the political character of the criminological enterprise in British Columbia. The political- 9
ideological content of the activities of crimiinologists in
British Columbia is documented through in-depth interviews.
This evidence tests the claim that criminology in British
Columbia is not value-free but is dominated by liberal
ideology. The chapter describes the empirical methodology used to collect and analyse the data. Issues such as relilability, validity, sampling, response rates, interview design, coding
format, and statistical analysis are discussed.
Chapter Five presents the results of the data.
Statistical cross-tabulations confirm the hypothesis that criminology in British Columbia is not value-free, but is dominated by liberal ideology. These data also reveal the degree to which conservative, liberal, and radical ideological
fractions face difficulties in their teaching, research, publishing, consulting and Board work; as well as the extent to
which their work is regulated by various state agencies
(e.g. educational institutions, funding, publishing houses,
contract consulting). Chapter Five, therefore, indicates the
nature of the relationship between criminologists and the
Canadian state.
Chapter Six concludes with a reexamination of the
historical, theoretical, and empirical facets of the thesis
vis-a-vis the political-ideological dynamics of criminology.
This calls for an integration of Gramsci's and Gorz's points
regarding organic intellectuals (e.g. criminologists), the
state's intervention in knowledge production, and the coercive 10 and ideological forms of social control central in the development of capitalist hegemony. From the conclusions of this research, implications for some likely directions for criminological research will be suggested in relation to promoting social justice in Canadian society. 11
CHAPTER TWO
Historical Developments in Criminal Justice Education
Introduct ion
Marx (1934) brings to our attention a number of crucial
factors that need to be included in a sociology that transcends the political distortions of partial, atomized, ahistorical analysis. He states:
Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living (p.10).
Marx informs us of the importance of including historical
forces in our understanding of contemporary phenomena. He
contends that historical dynamics should be approached through
the dialectics between past and present, and their ideological
and material components. This chapter builds upon Gramsci's
(1971) view of ideological hegemony which was developed out of
the revitalization of Marx's dialectical materialism.1
Gramsci's concept of hegemony is suited to explicating the
political dynamics of intellectuals. He contends that
intellectuals are central figures in political struggle due to
1 Gramsci did not draw the distinction between ideological and material forms as did Marx; rather, Gramsci viewed history and ideology as having material existence in the sense that it embodies the very social, political, organizational, institutional, and cultural practices of individuals (Simon, 1 982,= p.59) . 12 their role in producing ideologically laden knowledge. As is the case for criminal justice systems, such knowledge has proven historially significant in organizing, enforcing, and legitimizing unequal social relations. In outlining the political contours of the historical development of criminology, this chapter traces its ideological traditions as they relate to the social control needs of the capitalist state. This outline begins with the role of liberalism in the development of early English capitalism and then moves to criminological ideology in the 20th century United States.
This review is not intended to be exhaustive but to outline the political traditions that have provided the ideological
foundations for what has become the practice of contemporary criminology in British Columbia.
This chapter describes a criminology that has been historically dominated by liberalism which approaches social problems from within a highly empirical and technocratic
framework. Consequently, mainstream criminology has invariably
sponsored social reforms which are consonant with capitalist views of social order, thereby reproducing and mystifying
structural inequalities between races, classes, gender, and
first and third world nations. The state's reluctance to debunk the ideological character of professional criminology
frustrates attempts to resolve the contradictions between
liberal views of justice and actual social injustices. 1 3
Early Foundations of Modern Criminology
Recently there has been an influx of historical research examining the structure of justice prior to the advent of capitalism. Spitzer & Scull (1977) and Weisser (1979) are three observers who discuss the specificities of feudal jurisprudence. Generally, issues were resolved at the individual, familial, or community level through the usage of fines, retribution, penance, or banishment. In essence, justice was a private affair that accepted feudal norms and morality. Justice as a localized system of justice and punishment revolved around the idea of personalvengeance as the means to deter, solve, and punish acts of assault and property damage (Weisser, 1979, p.53).
Nevertheless, the stability of this jurisprudence system was upset as part of the prolonged series of cultural, economic, and geographic crises that emerged in Europe and ultimately led to the collapse of feudal hegemony in the 16th century, giving way to a more commercial and eventually a more capitalist socio-economic system (see Kimmel, 1977). While feudal times had been hegemonic and relatively static, these socio-economic and cultural phenomena developed as a part of the general "crisis of authority". This crisis was manifest in a diversity of struggles, conflicts, and revolts by the aristocracy and the poorer classes against the emerging counter-hegemonic practices and ideology of the bourgeoisie.
The new order was to involve the replacement of private systems 1 4 of justice and control with "public" centralized rational systems that were extensions of the emerging capitalist state.
Pioneers of Early Liberal Ideology
The seeds of capitalism which were taking root throughout
17th century Europe -especially in Britain- developed through early advocates of liberal ideology who fostered a rethinking of social and political order. Early bourgeois secular scholars, particularly Thomas Hobbes (1588-1676) and John Locke
(1632-1704) were intellectuals "organic" to the bourgeois
ideology since their ideas on the social contract proved to be essential forerunners to classical liberalism and its restructuring of justice and punishment. Hobbes advocated
rational egoism, competitive exchange, and their regulation by state institutions - all essential conditions for capitalism.
(MacPherson, 1962, p.71).2
It must be understood that the emergence of classical
liberalism was a process of struggle, resistance, and revolt against traditional feudalism (Morris, 1979, p.14). This stage
of revolt, or crisis of authority, was not only between the
bourgeoisie and the aristocracy, but between the bourgeoisie
and the poorer classes. Gramsci (1971) explains that in the
immediate stages of "organic" hegemonic crisis there is a
2 There is evidence that as early as the 17th century, bourgeois scholars recognized the power of knowledge. Hobbes (1958) advocated the regulation of discourse as a means for social control (p.60). 1 5 distinct tendency towards dangerous and violent solutions as individuals and collectivities move from a position of passivity to activity in the wake of ideological confusion
(p.210). In the case of the poorer classes, their economic and intellectual resources were less adaptable, resulting in phenomena specific to their immediate environment; i.e. criminal, deviant, and disorderly conduct.3 Spitzer & Scull
(1977), Weisser (1979), and Morris (1979) delineate the magnitude of criminal and riotous forms of lower class resistance to capitalism.4 Weisser (1979) also points to the fact that criminal activities began to take on a definite class character; for instance, 70 percent of all reported felonies were committed by labourers (pp.77-78). Consequently, the poorer class bore the brunt of the restructuring of justice and punishment, an inequity which has carried into the contemporary period.
3 This corresponds to Gramsci's (1971) observation that during ideological crisis, lower classes suffer moreso than upper classes who have more material and ideological resources which rendered them more flexible in terms of reorganization (p.210).
4 Pearson (1978) describes the machinery smashing and riotous behavior that marked the earlier periods of capitalism. 16
The Reorganization of Feudal Justice and Punishment
The emerging liberal state responded to the crisis of authority by restructuring criminal justice mechanisms. Based upon the political views of Hobbes, who vested responsibility for social order in the state, the criminal justice system was redesigned in attempts to secure social harmony. In the initial stages, private justice systems were reorganized into.a more co-ordinated and rational integration of public and private services that set the foundations for modern criminal
justice.5 Spitzer & Scull (1977) and Ignatieff (1978) outline the transitional forms of contract policing, jails, and Houses of Correction.
Notwithstanding the presence of liberal humanism, the practical realities of this restructuring of justice and punishment quickly earned it the pseudonym of the "Bloody Code" amongst the poorer classes. For instance, summary offenses
entailed an increased usage of whipping, the pillory, and the construction of workhouses; all of which, were punishments for
those without the means of resources to pay fines (Ignatieff,
1978, p.24). In addition, the number of crimes punishable by
5 Foucault (1979) and Ignatieff (1978) clearly show that the innovation of an inquisitorial system was more focussed on acquiring confessions than on individual rights. 1 7
death increased from 50 in 1688 to over 160 in 1760 (ibid.).6
Weisser (1979) argues that not only was the "Bloody Code" brutal by nature, but that it served as a general system of social control for the bourgeois class:
Criminal procedure was not only a means for maintaining law and order, but had been transformed into a system of the law of one class versus the disorder of the other. In effect the criminal justice system was becoming a means of class control (p.102).
The ineffectiveness of the "Bloody Code" to deter social disobedience led to a major restructuring of the criminal justice apparatus and a stronger reliance on less coercive methods in order to secure public support for state usages of power.
The Humanizing of the CJS and Classical Criminology
Following from the "Age of Enlightenment", and the heated debates over political rights that took place immediately after the French Revolution, liberal intellectuals began to directly attend to issues of social control in order to design a more effective system and one that one that would be more humane than the "Bloody Code" - hence the birth of classical criminology. Such developments were in reaction to, and therefore formulated vis-a-vis social disorder and resistance
6 In addition to the the increased usages of severe punishments, a co-ordinated system of classifications was developed for offenses and punishments focussing on the behaviour of the poorer classes. This demonstrates that modern legalistic, class-oriented definitions of crime had taken root by the 18th century and were institutionalized in the liberal state. 18 by the poorer classes to liberal economic and justice systems; classical liberal humanism7 and, the need to stabilize and control social relationships (e.g. power relations) within the parameters of the changing economic order.8 Cesare Beccaria
(1738-1794) and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1842) originated the classical school of criminology. This school generated significant changes in the CJS of the period, but laid the foundations for mainstream criminology as an integral part of
20th century liberal hegemony. Central to their works were the concepts of social contract, utilitarianism,' and the power of rational choice; concepts that were used to design systems of punishment and social control. Beccaria and Bentham sought to identify universal social values from which to explain the existence of law and its impact on individuals' behavioral choices. Among other works, Beccaria's On Crimes and
Punishments ( 1 764 ), argued for laws reflecting and reinforcing social order built upon the utilitarian notion of social contract that implicitly universalized capitalist social structure as normative and therefore morally correct.
Therefore, the usages of punishments and deterrents by the CJS
7 Dahl (1977) clarifies that liberal humanism was a very powerful force in gaining the consent of the poorer classes. For instance, the laissez-faire state was instrumental in establishing programmes for alcoholism, neglected children, the insane, poor relief, health, and education for the poor.
8 Foucault (1979), while not integrating the material forces or the struggles and conflicts of capitalism, does establish the relationship between modes of punishment, correction, education, deterrents, and the needs of a factory-based economy. 19 as an arm of the liberal capitalistic state were presented as objective, value-free practices and policies that were devoid of class interest. The basic right of the state to punish - and thereby regulate social behaviour- had shifted fromvengeance to a jurisprudence that posited the defence of society and a reified "public interest". Clarke (1982) notes that the general thrust of liberal ideology in criminal justice was a plea for a more rational and humane code (p.30).
However, the dominant views of humanism, utility, and therefore state intervention in civil matters, were unequivocally located within the premises of liberal laissez-faire capitalism.
Bentham had argued that state intervention in individual affairs was justifed in that its function was to maximize utility, a utility that was founded upon the security of property rights, market structure and therefore the protection of power relations between labour and capital (MacPherson,
1972, p.20).9 The political resources of the liberal state were
thus vehicles for social control and stability that fostered a
social structure based upon middle class values of utility and
Darwinian views of social inequality. Social deviance and criminality were viewed as a threat to social welfare, thereby morally justifying increased usages of the criminal justice
9 The Schwendingers (1974) inform us that alternate systems of thought, such as the neo-romanticist that arose from the French Revolution, were dominated by liberal thought (pp.58-63). In addition, Hobsbawm (1962) observes that Marxism was similarly dominated by liberalism in the 19th century (p.289). 20 apparatus.10
At the turn of the 19th century, the modern form of the
CJS began to evolve as a result of the liberal concerns for humanism along with demands from the poorer classes for the dismantling of the "Bloody Code", and the need to stabilize
social behaviour and relations so that they would be more congruent with the requirements of a capitalist society. Two distinct areas of modernization were in the area of the police
and corrections. Before the 19th century, there were only
fragments of localized policing and magistrates who were
relatively inefficient and distrusted by the general populace
(Emsley, 1983, p.24). The restructuring of the police into a
more numerous and centralized group was resented and resisted
by the populace in their formative years during the 1830's
(Cohen, 1979, p.129). However, they did gain a much wider
acceptance by all classes by the 1850's since they did curtail
the more immediate forms of social disorder (e.g. predatory and
petty criminals, assault, etc. which afflicted all classes)
(Morris, 1979, p.58); moreover, their "humanistic" presence was
much preferred to that of the troops during the "Bloody Code".
Penal reform during this period was also characterized by a
more centralized, rationalized system of social control as
10 Liberalism and classical theory operate on the tacit assumption that there is a consensus concerning normality, that the state is obliged to preserve such normality, and that the individual is responsible for his/her behaviour. In fact, the state is actively involved in defining and redefining normality since it is also assumed that intellectuals have special access (e.g. scientific logic) to the laws of social behaviour (Taylor et al., 1973, pp.2-3). 21 evidenced by the appearance of Millbank (1816) and Pentonville
(1842) prisons. These prisons reflected the thinking of the contemporary liberal intellectuals (e.g. Beccaria, Benthem,
Howard) who advocated a more rational program of rehabilitation and deterrence that, as Foucault (1979) articulates, was increasingly more concerned with the internal disciplining of individuals than with relying on external methods of behavioural coercion.
CJS reforms of the the late 18th century that continued through to the mid-l9th century were reifications of the intellectual developments of the classical school of criminology which advocated social contract, and, ultimately, individual responsibility for behaviour. These tenets fostered the designing of clear-cut definitions of legal and moral behaviour vis-a-vis liberal bourgeois definitions of utility.
In addition, the intervention by the CJS, in terms of arrest, sentencing, incarceration, and rehabilitation, was justified by the utilitarianism posited by liberal intellectuals.
Structural inequaliIties underlying such views were either ignored or rationalized by Darwinian theory. With reference to this time period, Balkan et al. (1980). observe that:
"Non-white people, women, and the lower classes were inferior species and less fit and less adaptable to the exigencies of social life. They interfered with the smooth functioning of a social system and made unreasonable demands on hard-working white, competitive males" (p.15). 22
Positivist Criminology, the Advent of Technocracy, & Liberal
Hegemony
With the advent of the 20th century, criminology, as had other social sciences, became entrenched in the positivist approach derived from the classical school's efforts to postulate natural laws of social behaviour. Shaw (1972) informs us that the impact of Marxian thought, popular in
Germany, had limited impact upon bourgeois intellectuals in
Britain or America. In fact, Marxist thought was rejected outright by American intellectuals in favour of systems of thought that were more in tune with capitalist values and which could legitimize structural inequalities (Gurney, 1981, p.196).
Positivist criminology had become an integral part of the
ideological apparatus that established liberal hegemony at the turn of the century. Positivist criminologists, such as
Lombroso (1835-1909), had assumed and argued that criminality and deviance were the result, not of social or political
forces, but of biologically-based, measurable pathologies and mental defects which did not permit individuals to comply with
the social contract (Gibbons, 1979, p. 12). Typical of
liberalism, the emphasis on the individual that had been
formulated by the classical school, continued, but with passing acknowledgements of environmental factors (e.g. poverty, poor
11 Spitzer & Scull (1977) point out that CJS developments - which would include criminology - in England predated and often provided the models for similar innovations in the United States (p.267). 23 nutrition).11 By focussing on individual etiologies in explaining crime, areas of social conflict and inequalities were ignored. Michalowski (1977) explains:
Since it views crime as an object and seeks to uncover the laws governing criminal behaviour, positivism can most easily focus upon the criminal as the phenomenon to be studied. It is here that the relationship between the positivist paradigm and a consensus model of law and social organization becomes evident (p.30).
In other words, positivist criminology accepts the state's legalist definition of crime, normality, and morality, which is presumably founded upon the general consensus of the population. Rather than concerning itself with the substantive issues of power, positivist criminology concerns itself with the rules of cause and effect, and in that process draws attention away from structural inequalities thereby contributing to the reproduction and legitimation of legalist mystifications of power relations in CJS policies and practices. The development and emphasis on the canons of scientific research further legitimized and clouded political processes. Gouldner (1970) states that these methodological fetishisms result in research appearing to be:
...a purely technical concern devoid of ideology; presumably it deals with methods of extracting reliable information from the world, collecting data, constructing questionnaires, sampling, and analysing returns (p.50).
The descriptive enterprises of the positivist school, through their value-free presumptions, posited cures to criminality through sentencing and treatment practices which in turn relied 24 upon the legalistic classification of criminals.12 CJS policy was not directed toward environmental alterations but rather with the disciplining of the criminals' inner processes through the use of psychological tools and re-education to facilitate conformity to the norms dictated by bourgeois notions of social contract.
It was from this intellectual and ideological basis, which dominated all others, that institutions for higher learning and technical skills were developed at the turn of the 20th century. Cullen and Gilbert (1982) characterize the
"Progressive Era" as the expansion of liberal movements towards humanizing the penal system by institutionalizing indeterminate sentencing, the use of parole, and the use of positivistic notions of environmental factors, (p.76). This era of CJS development was also characterized by liberal hegemony and was, to a significant extent, the result of the technical and intellectual contributions by professional criminologists who posited the state as a protective and therapeutic agent for society and the individual. Through the domain assumptions of liberalism (Gouldner, 1970). The CJS was viewed as an agency
12 Chapman (1980) informs us that by the middle of the 19th century, police and prison statistics were published annually and that, given methodological problems, they definitely show that there was a distinct "embodiment of the interests of the elite" in these records (p.149). 25 that was to control the overdevelopment of big business13 and to protect society from crime; indeed, through its therapeutic role, it was to protect deviants from themselves. As a part of state expansion and its role in establishing ideological hegemony, institutionalized education was developed further, both intellectually and technically (Manifesto, 1976, pp.124-
128). In terms of the CJS, it was at this time that professionalism and management concerns led to the development of the first higher education programmes for law enforcement in the United States in the 1920's (Senna, 1974, p. 390).
Increased CJS Education and Sociological Paradigms
There were marked increases in the expansion and utility of the criminological enterprise during the 1930's and 1940's.
These included the founding of the correctionalist-oriented
American Society of Criminology in 1941 and an explosion of criminological literature and textbooks (Gibbons, 1979, pp.
71-72). During the 1930's and 1940's, the central trend in criminology moved from rigid positivism toward a more serious inclusion of social and cultural causal factors in crime.
Intellectuals, such as Edwin Sutherland and Robert Merton, had been influenced by the Great Depression of the 1930's -with its massive social and economic upheavals- and began to inquire
13 Contrary to this professed motivation, Goff and Reasons (1978) show that early Anti-Combines legislation in Canada was ineffective in regulating corporate practices. In fact, such legislation facilitated big-business practices by diverting attention away from other pieces of legislation that promoted corporate profits and controls. 26 into the effects of peer pressure, neighbourhood disorganization, poverty, and familial conflict upon criminality (Galliher, 1978, p. 246). Galliher discusses the survival of positivist approaches in sociological criminology,
1" but he fails to acknowledge that•Sutherland also initiated research into non-legalistic crimes such as those of corporate business practices.15 These concerns were generally ignored, however, in the implementation and establishment of higher educational programmes for the CJS. These programmes were small in number and pragmatically oriented; e.g., the
B.Sc. degree in police administration at the University of
Michigan which began in 1935 (Senna, 1974, p.390). Such technical orientations reflected, as Gorz (1976) argues, a philosophy towards education (in the period prior to WWII) which regarded it as a vehicle for reducing costs and increasing efficiency (p.163). In sum, the grip of liberal hegemony and correctionalist philosophy directed the general content of criminological innovations both intellectually and and in their CJS applications.
1U Piatt and Takagi (1979) concur with Galliher. Positivist theories still commanded some popularity in the 1930's and through the 1960's as demonstated by chromosomal research on criminality and violence (p.5).
15 Clinard and Yeager (1980) note that Sutherland was severely and personally criticized for daring to question the morality of the American economic system (p.x). 27
Labelling Theory, Critical Criminology, and CJS Higher
Educat ion
Braverman (1974) informs us that after WWII, scientific research in the United States -which was heavily financed by government and corporations- systematically undertook to furnish the scientific-technical knowledge needs of industry
(p.166). Intrinsic to this knowledge base, was the growth of efficient management skills to control and regulate social and economic processes (p.171). Similarly, this process applied to the extension of the welfare state's agencies in general, as a means to secure social order (e.g. power relations between women & men, classes, and races) conducive to a capitalist society. The CJS and the criminological enterprise were no exception to this phenomenon. In reaction to the social and political unrest of the 1960's,16 the federal state produced the 1965 Law Enforcement Assistance Act (LEAA) and the
President's Crime Commission Report of 1967 that intiated the
"War Against Crime". From these political and economic mandates, the CJS's educational apparatus expanded at an unprecedented rate. Both applied and intellectually oriented
16 Balkan et al. (1980) outline the magnitude of unrest and the various forms it took; for instance, protests against U.S. Intervention in Vietnam, demands for increased civil rights, women's rights groups, Black Panthers, Yippies, hippies, and the intense danger and fear regarding street crime in the cities (p.10). 28 programmes17 were quickly constructed to deal with the counter- hegemonic turbulence of the 1960's and 1970's which precipitated an intense reaction by the state over issues of authority and legitimacy. This reaction was reminiscent of the collapse of feudal hegemony in that initial reactions took the form of overt coercive measures. Nevertheless, the contemporary state's reaction was more sophisticated and humane due to the advanced organizational resources of the modern state; e.g., economic, technical, educational, intellectual.
Kuykendall (1977) documents that 104 criminal justice programmes were initiated between 1965 and 1967, and 458 more between 1968 and 1978 (p.161).18 Senna (1974) describes these programmes as concerned primarily with facilitating the training of CJS personnel, developing managment resources for the growing CJS, and exploring new ways of understanding, treating, dictating, classifying, and controlling' crime
(pp.392-393).
17 Gorz (1976) argues that the distinction between intellectual and applied activities/training has political foundations. While his argument is flawed by his instrumentalist position, he does clarify that specialization does separate services in order to increase productivity and efficiency (p.174). In terms of the CJS, such a separation faciliates the functioning of CJS practitioners by focussing their attention on immediate concerns rather than on larger structural contradictions.
18 Compared to the 193 criminal justice programmes that were started between 1930 and 1957, these figures are evidence of the drive towards higher eduation for the CJS. (ibid). Today, there are approximately 1,000 such programmes in the United States (Senna, 1974, p.391). 29
Labelling or societal reaction theory, was a significant intellectual development that followed the hegemonic threat in the 1960's and 1970's both in terms of the active and organized discontent of various groups and the over-reaction by the CJS; e.g. police violence. Labelling theory is characterized by the attempt to reject positivist notions that criminals are governed by unique cause-effect relationships. Instead, it argues that the social response towards crime and deviance is a key factor in the defining and understanding of criminality, normality, "and the law. Social facts are not simply to be considered as static or inevitable, but are to be approached as processes of individual and collective definition (Petrunik,
1980, p.215). However, the critical edge of labelling theory has been restricted by its liberal ideological assumptions
(Myers, 1983, p.1).19 Labelling theory intellectuals, such as
Becker, focus on the critique of power relations generally orientated towards micro and organizatonal flaws such as, the creation and interpretation of rules and typifications, CJS inefficiencies, brutality, mismanagement, and corruption.
19 Michalowski (1977) outlines the pluralist assumptions of the labelling persective. He states that while conflict is a key part in labelling theory, it is restricted to viewing society as being comprised of a multiplicity of world views; such conflicts are not located in any clear material or structural form. In fact, its arguments imply that the state and/or CJS are essentially value-free but in need of efficient reorganization (pp.24-32). 30
Labelling theory was not the only intellectual development to arise from the threats to liberal hegemony in the 1960's.
From Berkeley and the National Deviancy Conference in Britain, there emerged a more radical or "new" school of criminological thought showing signs of a further paradigmatic shift (Kuhn,
1962) within the discipline. Ian Taylor, Jock Young, Paul
Walton, Stuart Hall, Stan Cohen, Anthony Piatt, and Julia and
Herman Schwendinger, among others, advocated a "new" criminology -which began from the labelling theorists' observation that power is critical in the shaping of crime, law, and social order. These tenets were extended to include the Marxist traditions of the 19th and 20th centuries. This radical perspective was founded upon a marxian political economy framework that Marx had constructed. Marx (1970) had stated:
In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which corresponds definite forms of social consciousness (p.20).
While Marx did not apply his notions of structure, power relations, and consciousness to criminology, Quinney (1979) portrays criminology as playing an important function in the management of capitalist relations. Quinney outlines criminology as a cultural production that formulates knowledge and consciousness within an ideological and theoretical
framework - for CJS practitioners, intellectuals, and the 31 public - that has as its primary purpose the protection of the existing social order (pp.446-447). Radical criminologists argue that crime and the CJS do not exist in isolation.
Therefore, they must be analysed with attention paid to larger,
structural, and dialectical (e.g power relations) socio• economic issues. In addition, political economy analyses must account for historical and national specificities (Gaucher,
1983). However, mainstream liberal criminologists - following
their tradition of rejecting and vulgarizing Marxism - have
severely criticized and dismissed political economy arguments.
Beginning from the assumption that all Marxist and neo-Marxist
thought is inherently crude, they have argued that the new
criminology is simplistic in that it is focussed on economical,
polemical, and mechanistic analyses (Greenberg, 1976, pp. 611-
612; Toby, 1980). Indeed, some radical works do suffer from
such reductionism and are therefore inadequately formulated to
explain state concessions, the political impact of advocacy
groups, etc. However, even such theoretical flaws do not
preclude the illumination of capitalist political structures in
CJS designs.
To date, the works of radical criminologists have
demonstrated the flaws of mainstream criminology and have
pointed the way for theoretical and methodological development
in the context of political change. The focus is praxis -.
oriented both in the individual and collective sense of the
concept and therefore in opposition to liberal technocratic
criminology. To begin with, there is a push to have 32 criminologists critically reflect upon their own class, ideological, and political biases, thereby facilitating a more dynamic and complete view of the world and their position in it
(Gouldner, 1970, pp.29-35).20 From such activities, one is able to confront contradictions as they exist in liberal ideology,to locate them in capitalist socio-economic structure, and to articulate their substantive forms. The focus for radical criminologists and its threat to liberal hegemony is clearly stated by Gaucher (1983):
An important argument is that the dialectic of a situated Marxist criminological analysis not only explicates the nature of state activities, but also illuminates and clarifies the very nature of the political, economic and social relations of the society in question (p.36).
Only from such a basis is one able to strategically challenge liberal hegemony21 and the various reifications of capitalist structure; specifically, the inequalites and discriminatory practices of the law and the CJS against women (e.g. Rafter &
Natalizia, 1981; Smart, 1977; Smart & Smart, 1978; ; Weis,
1976), racial minorities (e.g. Bush, 1981; Greenberg, 1976;
Reasons, 1974), lower income groups (e.g. Garofalo, 1978;
Melossi, 1979; Reiman & Headlee, 1981; Taylor et al., 1973),
20 Gouldner's ideas of domain and background assumptions are well-argued and concur with Gramsci's (1979) view of the "critical self" as a vehicle for increasing one's conception of reality (p.333).
21 This not to assume that liberal or mainstream criminology is an homogeneous group; rather, it consists of a diversity of schools of thought that have liberal and capitalist (domain) assumptions to cement their efforts (Piatt, 1975, p.96). Ratner (1984) outlines the variety of types, from enlightened positivism to critical perspectives. 33 and third world nations (e.g. Boerhringer & Giles, 1977).
Through its reflexive stance, radical criminology has criticized mainstream criminology in order to reveal and alter its politics. Piatt (1975) and Herman and Julia Schwendinger
(1975) have succinctly outlined the content of liberal criminology and its impact on the stabilization of liberal- capitalist hegemony. Their works show the political function of mainstream criminology within the dominance of the "criminal justice" model. Justice model criminology22 operates within legalistic, reformist, pragmatic intellectual parameters.
Piatt (1975) argues that the very structure of liberal criminology is grounded upon the scholar-technical tradition, agency-determined research, and academic complicity which mystifies its functioning for the state (pp.99-101).
Therefore, the criminal justice model encompasses conservative and most liberal criminological ilks. From these arguments, the various fractions of radical criminology -often in conflict- continue to expose sexual, racial, class, and international injustices.23 Also, they link these power
22 Garofalo (1978) provides a succinct definition of the criminal justice model arguments and assumptions. He states it is a field of study that concerns itself with the operations of the CJS's institutions and is therefore administrative and more descriptive than analytically oriented; in addition, he argues that its hidden political function is to secure efficiency of the CJS and the existing socio-economic system (pp.17-18).
23 However, it is important to note that the bulk of radical criminology has focussed on class issues and have only just begun to critically examine the theoretical and empirical issues of sex, race, and third world domination within capitalist structure and culture. 34 arrangements with socio-economic structure, ideology, the law, and increasingly with the state. Not only do these theoretical directions show the futility of resolving the contradictions between liberal models of "due process" and "crime control"2" but they argue that there must be a restructuring of the wider society and of its guardian professions (such as criminology), in order for justice to materialize. This would necessarily entail moving away from legalistic definitions of crime which focus on lower status groups, and include crimes committed by government and corporations such as, fraud, price-fixing, government misuse of funds, military interventionism, etc.
While the counter-hegemonic thrusts of the 1960's and
1970's have produced tremendous intellectual advancements in the criminological enterprise, there have been growing divergences between the radical and criminal justice models.
The criminal justice model vitalized by labelling theory, has established itself as the dominant paradigm (Garofalo, 1978).
Taylor et al. (1973) contend that the ability of labelling theory to articulate inefficiencies within the CJS, without questioning its institutional legitimacy, resulted in its integration/co-optation into the criminal justice model's drive for law and order through increased efficiency and legitimacy
(pp.20-21). What empirical research has been done in the
United States reinforces the previously mentioned arguments by
2" Packer (1964), while not including socio-economic structures, systematically outlines the two models posited by the liberal state, and their contradictory assumptions. 35
Piatt (1975) and Herman and Julia Schwendinger (1975) that
there is a distinct subordination of the radical paradigm by
the dominant liberal perspective; in fact, in the United States
there is a movement towards the "new legal realism" of the
right (Piatt & Takagi, 1977). Clearly, the modern ideological
resources of the state (e.g. educational) have given the
dominant class the ability to reorganize its apparatus to
suppress counter-hegemonic forces in a way unthinkable in the
18th and 19th centuries. In terms of the CJS and criminology,
the state has been able to regulate radical influences through
subtle gatekeeping activities. Through the funding of
research, educational programmes (hiring of teachers with
regards to their political-ideological orientation, curriculum
design, etc.) the state has been relatively successful in de•
stabilizing the organizational basis of radical criminology
(Galliher,'1979).25 Senna (1974, p.396) and Kuykendall (1977,
p.152) inform us that most courses are vocationally oriented in
order to meet the pragmatic demands of the CJS; moreover,
Kuykendall makes clear that the theoretical training available
in the graduate programmes is not radically oriented but
focusses on systems, labelling, and positivist perspectives
(p.155). In fact, as Carter's work (1981) mentions there
appears to be a distinct trend towards an increasing
utilitarian approach to criminal justice education. Yet, when
25 Perhaps the most blatant example of state power in this regard would be the dismantling of the Center of Criminology at Berkeley in order to disband its radical collectivity (Schauffler & Hannigan, 1974). 36 one looks at the works and ideological orientation of criminal justice educators, the dominant conservative and liberal orientations of older, criminal justice educators who have
"applied" backgrounds in the CJS are contrasted with a small but active group of younger, highly educated criminologists who are more critical and radically oriented (Bynum et al., 1981).
While there is a schism between applied and research/intellectually oriented work and educational programmes, the dominance of the criminal justice model still prevails in both cases although there is a tendency to move away from this model in younger, higher educated persons in university settings.26 Consequently, there is a mounting intellectual, ideological struggle between criminal justice educators; or, in Gramsci's terminology, a "war of position" where ideological fractions struggle for popular support regarding modes for securing social order, and attempt to discredit alternative views.27 With the increasing split between the criminal justice and radical paradigms (Galliher,
1978), and the direct or indirect control of the state (through funding, hiring, in-service personnel, etc.) over employment for criminologists, (Ingraham & Sulton, 1981) serious
26 Greene et al. (1980) also demonstrate that not only is criminal justice education dominated by the criminal justice model, but that most faculty are white males.
27 A recent study by Greene et al. (1982) shows that while there is a visible concern for the radical approach to crime, most faculty favour of less radical paradigms as evidenced ' by their course syllabi. 37 professional difficulties arise for those advocating radicalism
(Ingraham & Sulton, 1981). Such difficulties come from pressures to forsake their class/ideological position in favour of career advancement. Such class contradictions faced by intellectuals in the state's employ set the conditions for change or co-optation (Beverley, 1978, p.84).
As outlined, the trend in the United States, as elsewhere, is towards a more utilitarian, right wing, criminal justice model for criminal justice education. Yet, even official state-processed crime rates suggest that utilitarian approaches to criminal justice education are futile since they show that criminality continues to rise (Manning & Redlinger, 1979, p. 131) as do CJS injustices to women, racial minorities, poorer classes, and third world nations.
Criminal Justice Education in Canada
The ideological traditions of criminology in Britain and the United States has been outlined in order to provide the intellectual foundations for criminology in Canada, and specifically in British Columbia. Considering that the
Canadian criminological enterprise is a relatively recent development, it is to be expected that the intellectual and ideological traditions of Britain and the United States would greatly influence Canadian criminology. Szabo (1978), Gosselin
(1982), and Couse et al. (1982) identify the impact of British and American traditions on Canadian criminology. Nevertheless, 38
it cannot be assumed that the British and American experiences have been wholly duplicated in Canada or are reproducible in the Canadian context. Gaucher (1983) warns against the
"wholesale transfer of theoretical constructs" or imperialistic
forms of ideology that have been produced in other societies
(p.37). He argues that such practices negate the basic premise of Marxist materialism in that theoretical enterprises must be
located within their material specificities, thereby, avoiding
replication of dominant forms of ideology. In noting some
crucial specifities that have impacted the development of the
CJS in Canada, Gaucher observes that there has not been an
"industrial revolution" in Canada from which one can explain
the disciplinary forms that the state has used to organize
social relations - explanations that better fit British and
American specificities. The dominance of a bourgeois society
that was based on land control through the 18th and 19th
century resulted in disciplinary forms akin to feudal
jurisdictional structures; e.g., settlement rights, banishment,
etc. (Beattie, 1977, p.9). The absence of an industrial
revolution - and therefore a material and ideological crisis of
transforming peasants into factory workers - resulted in a
unique and generally slower development of the Canadian CJS.
On the other hand, the experiences of Britain and the United
States have exercised undeniable influence; especially, since
they have been the dominant nations in the capitalist world.
Their economic and ideological impact was registered on the
Canadian CJS in the mode of its centralization and in the early 39 design of the Canadian penitentiary system. In the designing of Kingston Penitentiary (1835), Canadian officials relied on the prison models in the United States and on American
intellectual and technical supervision (Gosselin, 1982, p.71).
2 8
The Canadian state's interest in criminal justice
education culminated "in the Archambault Royal Commission (1938)
whose formal mandate was to guide the expansion of
correctionalism. One significant recommendation that flowed
from this report called for the involvement of Canadian
universities in the education and training of personnel for the
CJS (Edwards, 1983, p.850). The subsequent failure to initiate
educational programmes led to a review of the Archambault
Report by the Fateaux Commission in 1956. The latter
reiterated the recommendations of Archambault and upheld its
correctionalist orientation. Finally, in 1962 the Centre of
Criminology at the University of Toronto was established with
three others similarily constructed in Montreal, Ottawa, and
Burnaby. The construction of these centres served as
initiative for the organization of complementary programmes in
colleges and other universities across Canada.
28 Beattie (1977) outlines the Canadian usages of classical criminological tenets in the design and ideology of discipline, reform, and treatment (pp.14-16). 40
The founding of these centres was motivated by forces much like those that resulted in the restructuring of the CJS after the demise of feudal hegemony and jurisprudence. As in the past, the forces of liberal humanism guided the review of CJS inefficiencies and injustices (Chan & Ericson, 1981, p.7).
Notwithstanding the benefits of such humanism, the historical class orientations that pervaded liberalism continued to be a dominant force in CJS reforms. The presumption that capitalist social order was essentially sound resulted in the reproduction of a morality that dictated social inequalities and therefore injustices. As a result of counter-hegemonic movements in the
1960's and 1970's, the state and its criminal justice sector were pressed to reorganize its legal apparatus. Such a reorganization was concerned with appeasing the demands from the various political advocacy groups that had arisen; e.g. those lobbying for increased native rights and lands, increased women's wages and legal rights, and demands for equal justice and better living conditions for poverty/poorer groups.
Even so, such changes have taken place within the constraints of liberal reformist ideology, which has continued to ensure the interests of the economic elites. In addition, the state has attempted to revamp the CJS into a more efficient, cost- effective disciplinary force (i.e. decarceration as a means to reduce penitentiary costs and overcrowding). Yet, penal reforms have proven ineffective in reducing crime over the last century since the number of prisoners in proportion to the total population has been relatively static between 1881 41
(1/3,550) and 1971 (1/3,452) (Gosselin, 1982, p.107). Also, penitentiary costs (e.g. non-productive expenses) to the state in real dollars was $308,600,000 compared to $3,654,072 in 1947
(Gosselin, 1982, p.103).29
With the advent of the four major Centres of Criminology, criminology became an important element in the infra-structure of social control. In fact, with the development of the federal government funding programme for criminological research in 1974, criminology became a growth industry overnight, whose function was to assist in policy and programme decision-making and administrative and legislative reorganization (Couse et al., 1982, p.9). It was also at this time that courses and programmes were initiated at community colleges to complement those offered at the universities.
The arguments of Piatt (1975), the Schwendingers (1975), and Ratner (1984) appear to be correct in that the development of the criminological enterprise has been structured on the tenets of liberal ideology. While the founding philosophies of the Centres advocated multi-disciplinarianism, their technocratic orientation is evidenced by the 1976-1977 priorities for research; for instance, victimization, preventive policy, public attitudes, diversion, gun contdl, etc. State (federal and provincial) sources for funding reveal
29 Friedenberg (1980) reviews the MacGuigan Report (1977) and concurs with Gosselin regarding the inefficiencies and injustices of the penitentiary system. 42
that research and education has been influenced by government agencies even though the centres were to be "autonomous". In
fact, Doob (1983) argues that in terms of funding control,
government departments are increasingly moving towards a more controlled and narrow view of the research process (p.262).
Dandurand (1974) correctly portrayed the criminological
expansion in Canada in asserting that:
Schools and departments of criminology in Canadian Universities have undoubtedly succeeded in training supertechnicians and/or professionals acceptable to government (p.155).
Dandurand states further that criminologists have joined the
ranks of labelling professionals in that they deal with pre•
defined typifications (p.157). Szabo (1975) observes that
during the second half of the 20th century in Canada,
criminology has become more and more focussed on the
imperfections and malfunctions of the administration of justice
(p.120). Friedenberg (1980) reviews the 1976 MacGuigan Report
and finds that there is indeed a strong concern for more
efficient usage of discipline as modelled by the R.C.M.P. It
would appear that the capitalist class orientations - and
therefore the political commitments - of criminologists and
their intellectual focii are molded, in great part, by the
political-ideological controls of the state vis-a-vis higher
education and the CJS. For these reasons, all of which
explicitly or implicitly resonate with liberal assumptions of
criminological enterprise and social structure, it is not
surprising that there is a dearth of polemical writings - and
empirical research - dealing with injustices in relations to 43 gender, race, class, and international power relations. Such absences are noticeable in both liberal and critical/radical writings (moreso in the former), even though there is adequate
statistical evidence for CJS discriminatory practices against
native Indians, women, and lower socio-economic groups
(e.g. see Tepperman, 1977 or Griffith et al., 1980). While the
works of the critical/ radical school have focussed on
structural and political inequalities in social relations and
institutions, to date- they have made a minimal contribution to
substantive areas such as those relating to sexism. Works such
as those by Clark & Lewis ( 1977), Gavigan (1983), and the
Women's Research Centre (1982) are submerged under the deluge
of mainstream literature in Canadian criminology.
With reference to their historical roots, the ideological
orientations and intellectual practices of Canadian
criminologists have been outlined with regard to their role in
the state's infra-structure of social control, this discussion
has obscured the actual "war of position" or the ongoing
political struggle between criminologists of conflicting
political-ideological commitments. Nor have we demonstrated
the concrete regulation of criminological work by the state in
the exercise of its own political interests and strategy. As
argued by the Schwendingers (1975), in order to unravel the
political interests and ideologies of criminology, their
development must be contextualized within an historically
apposite theory of the state (p.124). Chapter Three sketches
liberal-democratic and neo-marxist theories of the state by way 44 of providing a framework for interpreting the underlying political functions and evolution of criminology. It will be contended that Gramsi's concepts of the "integral state" and hegemony are pertinent to an elucidation the historical and contemporary ideological-political role of criminologists in the criminal justice system of the capitalist state. 45
CHAPTER THREE
Theories of the Capitalist State
Introduction
Considering that Marx and Engels (1972) demonstrated that states have historically developed in relation to property relations, the emergence of the liberal-democratic state in capitalist economies is not an unexpected phenomenon. The previous chapter pointed out the capitalist state's historical dependence upon its social control apparatus such as the CJS to maintain social order, and drew attention to the contribution of liberal intellectuals to the development of capitalist systems of social control.1 Criminologists have traditionally occupied a central and conservative position in class control, struggle, and hegemony by attributing the causes of criminal and deviant behaviour to individual and interactional dynamics.
Consequently, the structural inequalities that characterize capitalist relations of production are discarded as inadequate explanations for social disorder. Nevertheless, the political nature of the liberal-democratic state, its mandates, sources and mechanisms of power, and the manner in which this power is exercised is a subject of intense controversy between and among liberal and neo-marxist intellectuals. Until recently, the salient role of the state has been unrecognized, or
1 Gramsci (1971) maintains that intellectualism developsin accordance with very concrete traditional historical processes" (p.11). 46 underdeveloped in criminological writing and research in
Canada, and elsewhere; moreover, the political role of
intellectuals in production of knowledge has received scant attention.
This chapter concerns itself with a brief review of recent neo-marxist and pluralist (liberal-democratic) theories of the
state. Given the numerous complexities in the evolving
theories of the capitalist state, this chapter is not concerned
with presenting them in meticulous detail. Instead, the focus
of this review is on examining the theories in terms of their
relevance for an exegesis of the political function of
intellectuals in the capitalist state. Such an examination
involves a critical analysis of the manner in which the various
theories conceptualize two major axes. Considering that
intellectuals are not directly connected to economic gain, this
chapter explores the nature of the relationship between the
economic base and the ideological superstructure. Secondly,
the political aspect of intellectual work is not readily
visible since intellectuals are allegedly "scientific" rather
than politically motivated. Therefore, the second axis to be
considered in this review is that of the political and civil
society dichotomy. From this outline of liberal-democratic and
neo-marxist theories of the state, a framework for
understanding the historical and contemporary politics of
criminology will be introduced. The following table indicates
the basic structural differences of the theories to be
investigated in terms of the two major conceptual axes. 47
TABLE I
Structure of Theories of the Capitalist State
VERTICAL AXIS HORIZONTAL AXIS
Base - Superstructure Political - Civil
Pluralist: Pluralist: autonomous autonomous
Instrumentalist: Instrumentalist: class controlled political sphere extended into civil
Structuralist: Structuralist: relative autonomy political sphere relation extended into civil
Gramsc i: Gramsc i: relative autonomy & dialect ic dialectic relation relat ion
The theoretical outline is organized in relation to the historical developments of political thought. Beginning with the development of liberal views on the capitalist state
(e.g. Presthus), the instrumental theorists' (e.g. Miliband) attack on liberal theories is presented. Following that, the structural neo-marxists' (e.g. Althusser, Poulantzas) challenges to instrumentalist arguments are presented.
Finally, the views of Gramsci are presented as best suited for overcoming the theoretical limitations of the above perspectives. Gramsci's conceptualization of the "integral" 48 state2 explains the extension of the political sphere into civil society in order to solidify liberal hegemony. This prespective is useful for explicating the ideological and therefore political underpinnings of the criminological enterprise. Following from Ratner et al. (1983), when applied to the Canadian context Gramsci's theoretical framework illuminates three significant factors related to the mechanisms of state power. First, state action (e.g. CJS) is organized in relation to fiscal contraints since the state's resources are dependent upon funds extracted from economic processes and are therefore constrained by fiscal fluctuations (e.g. Gough,
1979). Second, the CJS has a distinctly coercive/punitive function that comprises the "armour" of hegemony. Finally, and central to this thesis, the CJS has an educative and ideological role in regulating political struggle and social relations, thereby securing the ideological hegemony of ruling class fractions.
2 Gramsci (1971) convincingly argued that the state is most clearly understood through its ultimate, connections with civil society. He denoted that the state = political society + civil society - in other words, hegemony that is protected by the armour of coercion (p.263). 49
Pluralist-Democratic Theories of the State
Liberal scholars have long argued that the capitalist state is best defined as a democratic and pluralistic political body that has no intrinsic interests of its own and is therefore devoid of economic or class bias. This perspective, therefore, characterizes the vertical axis by separating the economic base from the superstucture. While the separation of the political and economic spheres is a generally accepted part of liberal hegemony, this was not always the case. MacPherson
(1977) points to the contemporary liberal-democratic state as the culmination of an historic process of liberal ideology and capitalist development. Beginning with the early liberals, the state was thought to be a protector of social welfare and individual liberties, and therefore indifferent to class bias.
However, the early utilitarian philosophy of Bentham soon proved impractical due to the inability of the state to resolve the conflicts between upper/ruling and working classes - an antagomism that resulted in the chronic criminal activity alluded to in the previous chapter. As was the case in the restructuring of the CJS during this period, the entire liberal political system was redesigned to accomodate some of the working class - in an. attempt to secure consent through concession and to realize the concerns of liberal humanism
(MacPherson, 1977, p.44). These changes were intended to
reduce political bias and secure some degree of autonomy for
superstructural elements from the economy. 50
This was the birth of the liberal-democratic state. While very distinct changes were instituted, they were generally reformist in orientation. Liberal intellectuals continued to accept the legitimacy of the state, its mechanisms of power
(e.g. CJS), and the viability of capitalist morality.- The growth of the liberal-democratic state embraced a concentration on formal democratic process, focussing on universal sufferage,
individual political liberties, competition, and the rule of
law. Structural antagonisms and individual injustices of capitalist society drew litte attention.3 Instead, the democratic state was upheld as the result of and the means for
obtaining individual and collective prosperity. MacPherson
(1977) states:
Democracy would make people more active, more energetic; it would advance them 'in intellect', in virtue, and in practical activity and efficiency (p.51) .
In addition to the traditionally liberal focus on the concerns
for individual liberty, pluralism was highly touted
democratic representation and the equalization of political
power. Again, competing and conflicting interests were
recognized in legalistic contexts, but not in relation to
structural and historical parameters. Furthermore, the
inequalities spawned by capitalism were mystified by
individualistic and Darwinian theories of social progress
3 Schwendinger & Schwendinger (1974) document the legal, economic, and political subordination faced by women and blacks, among others (e.g. voting rights and participation, poor treatment by the CJS, lesser = wages and access to occupations). 51
(Schwendinger & Schwendinger, 1974, MacPherson, 1977, Balken et al., 1980, etc.).
From liberal intellectual traditions, modern democratic- pluralist theories of the state have developed into a dominant political paradigm. Liberal ideology continues, explicitly and implicitly, to regulate the perception of political groups, processes and relationships. Liberal ideology thus plays a central role in the architecture of state apparatus (e.g. CJS, education). Through the tenets of liberalism, scholars project the modern state as a political system which champions the democratic process. As Giddens (1981) notes:
The state is assumed to be a benign instrument for the progressive achievements of goals of social reform: the redistribution of wealth, the spread of welfare programmes, the ever-increasing expansion of education, and so on (p.203).
The image of the state as the benevolent facilitator of competition between a diverse number of fractions has secured the prominence of the pluralist-democratic model. Ono (1967) verifies that bourgeois pluralism enjoys its popularity because of its ingenious ability to reconcile liberty with class differences in wealth and power; indeed, the pluralist model embraces social heterogenity, group conflicts, divergent values, and conflicting interests as integral to the multi• cultural democratic process (p. 100). The state is effectively presented in such fashion by conceptually separating political
power from social and economic processes - thereby creating the
ideological space for pluralism. Rather than being a "class
state", the state is posited as the vehicle for overcoming 52 class divisions through the impartial exercise of its. regulatory apparatus in order to ensure redistributive and egalitarian policies (Giddens, 1981, p.205).
Liberal intellectuals contend that the democratic state remains classless due to its system of representation
(e.g. through suffrage) which secures equal access to political decision-making. Presthus (1970) argues that voting and political membership facilitates equal interest representation
in political processes. While he acknowledges the existence of elites, dominant groups are not seen as homogeneous, but as
specialized personnel that emerge from the democratic process
in order to fulfill leadership functions. Emphasizing voluntarism, Presthus (1970, p.284) assumes that all have equal opportunity and access to political decision-making thereby preventing any unwanted fraction from to monopolizing political power.
Yet separating the political sphere from the economic
base, pluralists are unable to give an adequate account of
structural, ideological, or material forces. Since little
significance is attributed to these forces in pluralist
analyses, the inter-relationships between ideology, law,
economy, and the state are not vigorously pursued.
With regard to the horizontal axis, the split between
civil and political society in pluralist analysis is distinct.
The political terrain is narrowly centered around government
and the legislature, on the assumption that civil society is 53 characteristically apolitical, except as popular political concerns are periodically voiced through sufferage. This conception conveniently neglects both the organizational power of grassroots or citizen advocacy groups and the weight of centralized and institutionalized political processes. The gap between equal access rhetoric and the actual powerlessness of certain fractions stirs feelings of frustration and alienation, with disorganizing effect on the political potential of less powerful groups. As Mills (1956) argued, pluralist ideology induces individuals to focus on their immediate milieu and to overlook the larger structural, ideological, and material factors which determine the general contours of their existence
(pp.322-324).
Liberal advocates of the pluralist-democratic model posit the CJS as a state resource for justice. The CJS allegedly promotes individual liberty, thereby securing social welfare through the mediation of differences, disputes, and violence; i.e. the rule of law. Card (1979) comments:
It is important to note that there lies implicitly within the pluralist scenario of state function the notion that the legal formulation process is structured in such a way that the diverse interests of society will be represented equally in the decision-making process," and that decisions will be made based on those submissions which most accurately reflect the general interest (p.32).
As in the case of political leaders, Card draws attention to the reliance upon unbiased "experts" or intellectuals who
research, design, reformulate, and explain CJS policies and practices. Specifically, professional criminologists employ 54 scientific expertise and knowledge to accomplish their mandate.
Injustices are readily attributed to inefficiencies in the system rather than to social or economic contradictions and inequalities. The CJS is viewed as essentially sound needing only increased internal efficiency or extensive reorganization
(e.g. Connidis, 1982). In sum, criminology is defined as a professional, scientific non-ideological enterprise whose task is to provide a sophisticated knowledge base for the CJS, its personnel and policies, so that it may better secure individual liberty and social welfare." The ineffectiveness of CJS reforms over the centuries is generally viewed as the result of inadaquate scientific research, management, funding, and the stubbornly' pathological disorders of individual trangressors.
More importantly, the role of intellectuals is seen as extraneous to knowledge-production - an unreflexive approach completely at odds with Gramsci's appreciation of the socio• political context of intellectual work.
4 Gramsci (1971) observes that intellectuals have an historical tradition of putting themselves forward as.autonomous and independent of the dominant social group (p.7)". The absence of research on their ideological function, is therefore explained by their presummed "independent" position in social, economic, and political processes. 55
Instrumentalist Theories of the State
Chapter Two outlined both the development and subordination of Marxist thought in criminology following the counter-hegemonic turbulence of the 1960's. The growth of radical criminology was a part of a more general resurgence of
Marxist thought which focussed on the modern capitalist state.
Beginning with the works of instrumentalist neo-marxists, such as Miliband, this resurgence has directly challenged pluralist- democratic theories which posit the state not as an autonomous
body, but one that is a direct instrument of the capitalist class. Within this framework, intellectuals are considered to
be socialized so as to reproduce ruling class dominance.
Miliband (1973) challenges liberal scholars who argue that no
one interest can regularly marshall power to impose its will
upon the larger society. His purpose is to demonstrate the
class nature of the state. He maintains that:
...the 'ruling class' of capitalist society is that class which owns and controls the means of production and which is able, by virtue of the economic power that is conferred upon it, to use the state as its instrument for the domination of society (p.23).
From this framework, the vertical axis is characterized by a
lack of separation between the economic base and
superstructure. The ruling class is the capitalist class and
its fractions.
Miliband adds to our understanding of the extent of
political processes along the horizontal axis. He extends the
political sphere into institutions that pluralists view as a 56 part of civil society. Through his analysis, Miliband is able to demonstrate that political power and processes are not limited to government, but exist in a complex of institutions and bureaucracies; e.g., the military, CJS, education. In addition, by establishing the linkages between these institutions he pierces their veil of legitimacy and neutrality
(Gold et al., 1975, p.34). In sum, Miliband establishes the political dynamics of ideology as a vehicle for state power.6
As represented by Miliband's work, instrumentalism has clearly demonstrated the class orientation of the state and its legal apparatus by examining the inter-relationships between ideology, law, economics, and the state. Quinney (1977) provides a clear instrumentalist definition of the CJS:
And in capitalist society the healthy order is the one that benefits the capitalist class, the class that owns and controls the productive process. Capitalist justice is by the capitalist class, for the capitalist class, and against the working class (p.3) .
The class orientation of the CJS is established through the articulation of family, educational, political party
5 Miliband (1973) argues that legislative assemblies play a subsidiary role in political decision-making even though solemn tributes are paid to them as the ultimate repositories of the 'popular will' (p.148).
6 In the The State in Capitalist Society Miliband demonstrates the class content of the political processes. His methodology has focussed on establishing the relationships between political and economic elites by empirically examining their individual, occupational, and organizational linkages. He argues that there are distinct relationships between political elites and "big business" and that the latter controls the state and therefore determines the form and direction of its intervention (pp.53-55). 57 affiliations. Of the CJS personnel. Olsen (1980) demonstrates the class bias of the Canadian judiciary through instrumentalist methodology.
From the instrumentalist perspective, intellectuals are viewed as indirectly related to the capitalist class through their ideological socialization at university (Miliband, 1973, pp.230-231). Educators are generally conceived as technocrats or managers functioning to secure social and economic conditions conducive to the accumulation of capital, thereby
securing the political dominance of the capitalist class and
its fractions. Miliband establishes the class nature of
educators by establishing family histories which he argues
regulates access to higher education (p.38). Criminologists
function to control crime and focus on disciplining lower class
individuals who do not conform to capitalist moral norms.
Their expertise is directed at providing knowledge and skills
for the CJS's coercive and ideological manipulation of social
relations. The class biases of professional criminologists
would be established through their ideological orientation
which is , in turn, regulated by state funding, hiring
practices, etc. (Couse et al., 1983 ).7
7 Legal, political, and economic gains made by subordinated individuals and groups cannot be accounted for within this framework; for instance, Women's groups, native Indian groups, environmentalists, Amnesty International. 58
While instrumentalist scholars such as Miliband have successfully demonstrated the class orientation of the state, there are distinct limitations to their analysis. The conceptual separation between base - superstructure is done in such a manner that the latter is simply epiphenomenal of the economic base. Not only does this perspective assume that the ruling class is interchangeable with the capitalist class, but it cannot adequately account for the political struggles from
"lower status" groups. Whereas, the political sphere is discussed in isolation from its "complex articulation with economic forces" (Jessop, 1977, p.357), explanations are ultimately located in economics owing to the absence of the dialectic between economic and political processes.
Intellectuals' production of knowledge is viewed as reflective of the social needs of production, e.g. moral and coercive discipline. Social change in general is reduced to the mechanics of economics, thereby over-looking the forces of culture.and ideology, and the political gains achieved by lower strata fractions through their intellectual representatives.
Second, instrumentalists' empistemology and methodology further limits their analysis. The strong emphasis on voluntarism implies that CJS reforms are instituted through conscious, rational, and benign processes. Such a concept does not permit the inclusion of historical traditions on the production of knowledge which, as was outlined in the previous chapter, has played a significant role in ideological struggle and political domination. Jessop (1977) maintains that 59
Miliband's focus on interpersonal connections reproduces the liberal tendency to discuss politics in isolation from other forces (p.357). In fact, this methodology implicitly leads to conspiratorial analysis; for instance, political and individual decisions are related to the controls of "big business".8
From the outline of instrumentalist views of political processes, it appears that this theoretical framework is too reductionistic and unilateral to explicate the historical and contemporary ideological-political struggle within the criminological enterprise.
Structuralist Theories of the Capitalist State
Beginning with the contributions made by instrumentalists, structuralists have advanced a more sophisticated neo-marxist theory of the state. Althusser and Poulantzas have strongly responded to Miliband's arguments by advocating that an understanding of the state and society requires a more theoretical posture. As the starting point for their critique, structuralists have redefined the vertical axis by moving away from the classical base-superstructure dichotomy. Poulantzas
(1969) states:
The relation between the bourgeois class and the state is an objective relation. This means that if
8 Miliband (1973) does not become totally immersed in voluntarism as do most liberal scholars. He does, in the later part of his analysis include a discussion of ideological forces that are outside the immediate control of individuals and organizations. 60
the function of the state in a determinant social formation and the interests of the dominant class in this formation coincide, it is by reason of the system itself: the direct participation of members of the ruling class in the state apparatus is not the cause but the effect, and moreover a chance and contingent one, of the objective coincidence (p.245).
Considering that the state has an objective relation to classes, it is in a political position of "relative autonomy" and therefore has its own institutional resources to secure the long term needs of capitalism. Bridges (1974) maintains that the relative autonomy that is argued by structuralists presents the state as not directly tied to the economic sphere or to the dominant class (p.168). The state is a product of tensions and the equilibrium between conflicting class forces. It functions as a part of the base-superstructure dialectic.
Structuralists have also contributed to our understanding of the political sphere by reconceptualizing the horizontal axis. Poulantzas and Althusser follow Milibands's view that the political sphere is not restricted to government, legislative, and elective processes. They divide the superstructure into two inter-dependent elements; the politico- legal and the ideological. As opposed to instrumentalist views of their class affiliations (e.g. familial ties), structualists posit their systemic functioning as objectively determined by the base in terms of their role in production and accumulation.
Althusser (1971) argues that the ultimate condition of production is the reproduction of the conditions of production
(p.127). State apparatuses function to secure long-term needs 61 of capital by negotiating, mystifying, and organizing social relations that are conducive to the market place; therefore, the state's central function is one of providing social cohesion and stability (Poulantzas, 1974, pp.24-25). Thus, the state is a disciplinary body since it must organize behaviour, and as such, depends on the CJS to control crime, deviance, and other disorderly conduct.
Structuralists have made significant contributions to the ideological apparatus of the state. From Athusser's (1971) argument regarding education, it can be seen how the state's political powers and reproductive mechanisms extend into the realm of civil society. With regard to the dissemination of knowledge and attitudes he states:
To put it more scientifically, I shall say that the reproduction of labour power requires not only a reproduction of its skills, but also, at the same time, a reproduction o'f its submission to the rules of the established order, i.e. a reproduction of submission to the ruling ideology for the workers, and a reproduction of the ability to manipulate the ruling ideology correctly for the agents of exploitation and repression, so that they, too, will provide for the domination of the ruling class 'in words' (Althusser, 1971, pp.132-133).
Poulantzas (1974) extends Althusser's argument regarding the disciplining and political nature of ideology. His discussion of the "new" (educated) petty bourgeoisie adds to our
understanding of intellectuals and education - such insight can
be applied to the generation of criminologists. He provides an
insightful analysis of the division between manual and mental
labour. This division, he argues, is dependent upon the given
mode of production which therefore puts science in the service 62 of the capital (pp.235-236). In terms of this research, criminology could be considered within his definition of
"science".9 The division of practical and intellectual activities facilitates the control of knowledge. As was outlined in the previous chapter, knowledge and education became increasingly specialized during the 20th century, thereby regulating its political-ideological content and practice. Radical criminologists such as the Schwendingers
(1975) argue that this is also the case in criminology.
Poulantzas extends his investigation of the new petty bourgeoise beyond the mental-manual dichtomy. While he views knowledge as being in the service of capitalism, he does not approach the new educated fractions as being restricted to those with bourgeois orientations. Instead, he demonstrates that the educated are comprised of those who have conflicting political commitments.
Since the new petty bourgeoise is polarized between the bourgeoisie and the working class struggle, its division into fractions must be seen in relation to this polarization (p.314).
Considering that educators can be oriented either towards the bourgeoisie or the subordinated classes, it is clear that educating is activity that has a distinct ideological content and is an area of political struggle. While Poulantzas discusses the impact of educational access on traditionally
9 Poulantzas argues that while science presumes to be void of ideology, it is in fact ideology since it creates and reproduces the daily material and knowledge needs of production (ibid.). 63 subordinated class fractions (e.g. women), he concludes that their socio-economic advantages are limited by occupational structural constraints; for example, access to positions of influence. In other words, education is structured in order to reproduce the social and economic conditions of capital.
Therefore, it is reflective of base needs. The political dynamics of educated groups are applicable to criminology in that there are competing ideological fractions which experience different degrees of occupational . constraints, such as,
funding, access, consulting and publishing opportunities, and career advancement pressures.
Structuralists have greatly contributed to the development
of neo-marxist political theory by moving away from classical marxist base-superstructure/civil-political socie.ty
dichotomies, and by avoiding voluntaristic, mechanistic,
empirical methodology. The development of the "relative
autonomy" concept of the state permits analysis of the
connections between the economic and political spheres.
Nevertheless, the focus on objectively structured relationships
limits the analytic potential of the approach. While positing
the state as "relatively autonomous" and moving away from
strict functional analysis, the root causes of social change
are still located in the economy. Structuralists appear to
replace objective structures and relations for the
instrumentalist notion of a ruling class in order to
demonstrate that the state is not wholly manipulated by the
bourgeoisie. Nevertheless, political analysis becomes mired in 64 economic analysis.10 As applied to criminal justice, it suggests that developments in CJS education are also merely reflections of larger economic forces, and that the struggle of ideas waged by intellectuals is of little independent consequence.11
In terms of the horizontal axis (civil-political), structuralists have transcended the view that political power is located in traditional state bodies. Instead, they have extended their analysis to include the structuring of hegemony through institutions in civil society; such as, the educational system. Criminology would be seen as a part of this function, focussing on reproducing the internalized and coercive disciplinary forces that deter only some forms of crime and promote liberal morality. Nevertheless, the analysis of the horizontal axis is flawed in a manner similar to that of the vertical axis. Specifically, the objective structuring of
relations does not adequately account for the forces of change.
Their relationships are arranged a priori and therefore not
susceptible to significant impact by counter-hegemonic forces.
Structuralists' a priori epistemol.ogy creates other analytic
10 Paradoxically, even though political struggles are ultimately reduced to economic developments, Holloway and Picciotto (1978) contend that Poulantzas's distinction between the political and economic processes does not permit an analysis of the contradictions of accumulation and therefore cannot account for historical or national specificities (pp.6- 7) .
11 In fact, Althusser (1971) concedes that the political sphere is determined by the economic base in the "last analysis" (p.135). 65
limitations. Althusser (1971) argues that individuals are
identified by their functioning within ideological roles; they are "concrete subjects" (p.173). In this conception,
individuals are passive agents, an outlook that negates Marx's
views on praxis and political change.12 The impact of
historically signficant intellectuals would be difficult to
account for within this epistemological framework; for
instance, the work of Karl Marx, John Howard, Jeremy Benthem,
and Cesare Beccaria. In sum, structuralists have moved the
analysis of the state, ideology, and education away from
instrumentalism, and made significant theoretical developments
in relation to the "relative autonomy" of the state.
Nevertheless, the semblances of classical marxist base-
superstructure dichotomies, along with tendencies toward and
economic reductionism, limit their reconceptualization of the
vertical and horizonal axes and therefore the suitability of
this framework for the contested terrain of criminology.
12 Gramsci (1971) argues that such epistemology negates the understanding of movement from the objective to subjective , from necessity to freedom. Such a restrictive approach to the postion of knowledge in dialectics is fatalistic (e.g., limited potential for human/social growth). 66
Gramsci's Theory of the State
While neo-marxists continue to make valuable contributions to theories of the capitalist state, the works of Gramsci
(1891-1937) have specific diagnostic qualities that permit an analysis of criminal justice education not susceptible to reductionism and fatalism. Gramsci's starting point was an antipathetic response to theoretical works that originated in the Second International. He argued that these paradigms which employed traditional base-superstructure, civil society- political society, domination-hegemony, and structure-agency dichotomies were shallow, misleading and crippled the critical
edge of marxism through their omission of base-superstructure, civil-political society, objectivity-subjectivity dialectics
(Boggs, 1972, pp.84-85). Instead, Gramsci reconceptualized the vertical axis and horizontal axis by positing dialectics as the
crucial analytic tool for illuminating the politics of human
relations in capitalist society - this would include relations
between races, gender, and nations. Therefore, he moved away
from traditional marxist dichotomies and committed his
attention to the primacy of politics in an attempt to transcend
marxist thought that restricted its analysis of domination to
the sphere of production. Gramsci's central political concerns
were with the subtle but persuasive forms of ideological
control and manipulation that served to perpetuate all
repressive structures (Boggs, 1976, p.38). 67
With reference to vertical relations Gramsci stated that the superstructure is dialectically "relatively autonomous" to the base:
Politics becomes permanent action and gives birth to permanent organizations percisely in so far as it identifies itself with economics. But it is also distinct from it, which is why one may speak separately of economics and politics, and speak of "political passion" as of an immediate impulse to action which is born on the " permanent and organic" terrain of economic life but which transcends it, bringing into play emotions and aspirations in whose incandescent atmosphere even calculations involving the individual human life itself obey different laws from those of individual profit (pp.139-140).
Clearly, his conception of relative autonomy for the political sphere was distinct from that of Poulantzas or Althusser in that he did not see social or political relations in a priori terms of objectivity.13 Instead, he viewed their relation as relatively autonomous because their connections were mediated through a complexity of historically specific forces; such as, human nature, moral norms and rules, ideological systems, language and culture. Therefore, rather than being ultimately tied to the ruling class, the state is the outcome of the balance of class forces - including their various fractions.
Another Gramscian innovation applied to the relations that comprise the horizontal conceptual axis was his development of the "integral state", which transcended the civil-political
13 It is necessary to stress that Gramsci never denied the vital importance of objective conditions in shaping the revolutionary process. He emphasizes, however, that these conditions become historically operative only when they are "subjectively" realized (Boggs, 1972, p.87). 68 society dichotomy. Adamson (1980) observes that by positioning civil society within the state, or political sphere, Gramsci was able to shift analysis towards a re-examination of the mechanisms and relationships within the superstructure that constitute the historical and material content of class struggle, control, and change (p.216).
Gramsci's usage of the concept of hegemony provided him with the means for analysing the relationships and mechanisms that constitute state power and provided an understanding of the central problem of the capitalist state: what is the nature of state power, what are its forms, and how are they regulated?
Hegemony is not simply a form of domination; it is also the relationship between classes and their affiliated forces. The content of their relationship revolves around the manner in which one class gains and maintains the consent of other class forces through the construction of a system of alliances.1"
Hegemonic process consists of ongoing and historic struggles that involve various stages of localized alliances,
(e.g. economic-corporate).15 These struggles result in hegemony
("national popular") when the dominant class has been able to
1" Gramsci (1971) argued that hegemony is ultimately backed by coercive forces (e.g. military, CJS, etc.). Such forces are rarely used in the "war of position" but are commonly used during a "war of manoeuvre". The former is characterized by ideological struggle while the latter is more coercively oriented.
15 The economic-corporate stages consist of various groups forming political and economic alliances within, not between classes. 69 incorporate other classes interests in their own, thereby establishing a relative consensus regarding the legitimacy of an existing political system. Gramsci (1971) argues that such a position of control and advantage is only secured when the dominant group is able to provide intellectual and moral leadership, thereby normalizing and legitimizing socio-economic contradictions and antagonisms; i.e., injustices (pp.57-58).
Considering that political activity exists in the state and civil society, the state extends its apparatus into the
"private" sector in order to regulate ideological practices;16 specifically, to promote dominant ideologies conducive to capitalist production (i.e. liberalism) while similtaneously disorganizing counter-hegemonic forces (e.g. socialism, feminism, etc.). In fact, in order that hegemony is secured,
Gramsci maintains that central activities such as (wage) work must be assumed to be natural and the means for freedom, rather than the effects of externally imposed rules (p.34). He argues that there must be:
...a "cultural-social" unity through which a multiplicity of dispersed wills, with hetrogeneous aims, are welded together with single aim, on the basis of an equal and common conception of the world, both general and particular, operating in transitory
16 Gramsci's epistemology posits ideology as existing and operating in material forms that are embodied in social practices, and institutions (Simon, 1982, pp.59-60). Such ideologies are clearly significant in organizing the behavioural relations of production. 70
bursts or permanently (p.349).17
Therefore, the organization of ideology into a historically specific cultural form is central to hegemony since it mystifies and legitimizes social activities and inequalities.
Considering the centrality of culture in political control, the struggle for hegemony takes place in civil society.
In the Prison Notebooks Gramsci begins to articulate his theory of politics, the state, and hegemony by outlining the centrality of intellectuals in political struggle, social change, and domination. His views on the role of intellectuals identify two major themes underlying their activities.
1. contributing to the division between mental and manual intellectual behavour 2. contributing to the relationship between knowledge and power
Gramsci empahsizes the need to abolish the artificial divison between mental and manual intellectual labour - a separation that he testifies has been carried to the extreme under capitalism in civil society, the state apparatus, and the productive process. Such a separation retards praxis and promotes liberal hegemony.
Gramsci begins his discourse on intellectuals by refuting traditional or "vulgar" notions of intellectuals as consisting only of the highly educated. He maintains that "intellectuals"
17 While other neo-marxist theorists, such as Poulantzas, utilized the concept of hegemony, they stressed the determinant role of objective conditions (e.g. the economy). Thus, hegemony and culture were understood as essentially reflective of the material base. 71 are defined through their social function rather than their instrinsic talents, and that all persons are intellectuals.
Each man, finally, outside this professional activity, carries on some form of intellectual activity, that is, he is a "philosopher", an artist, a man of taste, he participates in a particular conception of the world, has a conscious line of moral conduct, and therfore contributes to sustain a conception of the world or to modify it, that is, to bring into being new modes of thought (p.9)
The separation between intellectual and manual activities has distinct political ramifications. By rupturing these intrinsically human activities, it shuts off the dialectic between the objectivity and subjectivity or the practical and intellectal activities of daily life, thereby restricting praxis.18 Social change is then restricted to the knowledge- production of intellectual "experts", which then reproduces the practices of alienated political processes.19
Gramsci's second major proposition regarding the social functioning of intellectuals concerns their role in the relationship between knowledge and power. This relationship constitutes an important element in the mechanisms in which class relations are created and organized. The function of criminologists in the social control apparatus exemplifies the
18 Gramsci discusses praxis as the individual and collective movement from "common sense" to "good sense". This polemical process facilitates the superseding of existing modes of thought and social life, and the construction of newer cultural forms (p.330).
19 Gramsci advocated the need for a dialectic (dialogue) between intellectuals and the public in order to transcend the gulf between theory and practice; a gulf that retards cultural and political change (p.334). 72 role of intellectuals in contributing to the maintenance of class power. Gramsci's concepts of "organic" and "traditional"
intellectuals present an historical perspective of
intellectuals vis-a-vis the ideological-political struggle for hegemony.20 In terms of the manner in which groups monopolize the means for organizing consent and social relations that are conducive to a given mode of production, intellectuals are crucial to the formation of "historical blocs". These blocs compose the dialectic between the superstructure and the base.
That is to say the complex, contradictory and discordant ensemble of the superstructure is the reflection of the ensemble of the social relations of production (Gramsci, 1971, p.366).21
While the definition of organic and traditional
intellectuals is somewhat ambiguous, they can be understood in
terms of their social function. Traditional intellectuals are
those who are ideologically, committed to a former mode of
production (e.g. feudalism, laissez-faire capitalism) and who
20 Gramsci's usage of voluntarism differs from that of Miliband. Rather than viewing individuals as exercising unrestricted human will, he interprets individuals as dialectically participating in historically specific social structures (historical bloc) (Adamson, 1980, p.208).
21 This would apply to criminologists' role in organizing cultural ideas of criminal and moral behaviour. Gramsci (1971) contends that historial blocs are situations "...in which precisely material forces are the content and ideologies are the form, though this distinction between form and content has purely didactic value, since the material forces would be inconceivable historically without form and the ideologies would be individual fancies without the material forces (p.377). 73 generally present themselves as classless or apolitical.
Organic intellectuals are characterized by their functioning in a modern mode of production and by their class orientations.
Therefore, there are organic intellectuals for capitalist fractions (e.g. liberal criminologists) and, also, for counter- hegemonic fractions (e.g. radical criminologists). Those
intellectuals who are liberally organic, and implicitly or explicitly advocate capitalist social order, function as
"deputies". By presenting liberal ideology as inherently moral and universal, they construct and organize popular "spontaneous consent" for state intervention in civil relations. Through
this function, which is accompanied by the disorganization of counter-hegemonic intellectuals (e.g. gatekeeping practices of hiring, funding, access, etc.), the coercive - often subtle - practices of the state regarding social discipline are
legitimized (Gramsci, 1971, p.12).
This review has pointed to certain lacunae in theories of
the capitalist state which pose problems for the analysis of
the political underpinnings of criminology, both historically
and in contemporary capitalist societies such as Canada.
Liberal-democratic theories tend to assume ideological
disinterest on the part of intellectuals and do not focus on
ideological preferences. Instrumentalists view intellectuals
as merely being agents in the reproduction of ruling class
power. Structuralists examine the ideological struggles that
takes place between educated class fractions, but ultimately
engage n economic reductionism. It would appear that Gramsi's 74 concepts of political hegemony and the integral state more readily apply to an exegesis of the ideological-political function of criminologists in the Canadian state's social control apparatus (i.e. CJS).
With these relevant theoretical concepts in mind, the next two chapters report on an empirical examination of criminology in British Columbia. The study focuses on the ideological perspectives of B. C. Criminolgists in the areas of teaching, research, consulting, and publishing. In addition, the study documents some of the restrictions and constraints placed upon criminologists who are critical of "mainstream" approches. The data tend to confirm the supposition that liberal dominance of criminology in Canada is part of the political economy of capitalist social control. 75
CHAPTER FOUR
Research Methodology
In the previous chapters, it has been proposed that criminology has been a predominantly liberal occupation, and therefore has demonstrated certain corresponding characteristics. In order to investigate the current status of this claim, an interview survey of criminologists in British
Columbia was conducted. This chapter outlines the methodology involved in collecting data regarding the activities, ideological perspectives, and constraints experienced by B.C.
Criminologists. The data substantiate the general research hypothesis that liberalism dominates criminology through a series of gatekeeping constraints in hiring, funding, contracting, and publishing practices. This suggests that the ideological-political traditions of criminolgy have retained their political vitality in the contemporary criminal justice system in British Columbia.
The Sample
The approximate population size (N=120) of British
Columbian criminologists was established through a review of academic calendars and faculty rosters from all the universities and colleges in British Columbia, including the 76
Justice Institute of British Columbia.1 While it was not presumed that this method would yield an exhaustive sample of
B.C. Criminologists, it was expected to provide an almost complte list since most criminologists are affiliated with B.C.
Educational institutions. Additional names were generated from the interviews, a process which Downes & Rock (1982) refer to as "snowballing" (pp.35-36). From a review of the academic calendars, it was found that the vast majority of criminologists are affiliated with educational institutions in the lower-mainland and Victoria vicinity. The sample was drawn from the following institutions which represent all those that offer academic and applied instruction in criminology and criminal justice in this area.
1. Simon Fraser University 2. University of British Columbia 3. University of Victoria 4. Camosun College 5. Kwantlen College 6. Douglas College 7. Fraser Valley College 8. Vancouver City College 9. Justice Institute of British Columbia
From these institutions a list of criminologists was compiled (N=87). From this population, a sample was organized
(N=56). The discrepancy between the population and sample size was due to two factors. A representative sample (60%) of
1 Not all Justice Institute Academies were included. The Police, Corrections, and Court Services Academies were selected as they are more directly relevant to criminology and criminal justice. RCMP Training Centre "E" was not included in =this survey. 77 criminologists at the Justice Institute was used (N=18), 13 persons were subtracted from the original population of 87.
Second, 18 persons on the population list were not accessible due to their absences from their college or university; for example, faculty on vacation or sabbatical, and those who were not affiliated with institutions outside of term
(i.e. sessional instructors). Once the sample (N=56) had been established, all persons were sent a letter of introduction
(see Appendix A). This letter was designed to familiarize potential respondents with the nature of the project, the
importance of their participation, and to advise them that they
would be contacted by telephone to establish a convenient time
for an interview.
After the letters of introduction were sent out, the
sample of 56 was further reduced (N=47), since not all contacts
resulted in scheduled interviews. There was a small number
(N=2) who refused to consent to an interview time.2 Nine
persons could not be contacted by telephone, therefore no
interview occurred. The final sample, consisting of those
actually interviewed, totalled 45 which established a 95
percent response rate. Considering that the vast majority of
criminologists in British Columbia are in the lower-mainland
and Victoria area, the sample of 45 is representative of
2 This number was orginally three but with a follow-up letter one person reconsidered and agreed to participate in the study. 78 criminologists in this province.3 This sample, and their institutional affiliations are as follows:
TABLE II
Respondents' Institutional Affiliation
Number Percentage
Un ivers i ty 22 48.9
Community 1 1 24.4 College
Justice 1 2 26.7 Institute
Total 45 100.0
Missing Cases = 0
The Questionnaire Schedule
The construction of the questionnaire schedule involved a number of tasks in order to obtain valid and reliable information pertinent to the research thesis. These were:
1. Deciding what information to collect 2. Drafting questions 3. Establishing the question sequence 4. A pre-test 5. Schedule revisions.
The questions were designed to inquire into the respondents'
3 The adequacy of the sample size assists in overcoming sampling errors and deviations. 79 teaching, research, publishing, consulting, and board involvements, as well as their ideological perspectives and constraints in these activities. Using Babbie (1973, 1979) and
Sudman & Bradburn (1983), a semi-structured interview schedule was constructed. It was estimated that some questions had potential for causing respondent defensiveness or discomfort; for example, questions on income, political party preferences, ideological orientations, and so forth. Therefore, open-ended questions were used in order to allow respondents to answer the questions in a less restrictive and more comfortable manner.
In addition to direct inquiries into respondents' ideologies, a variety of indirect questions were asked in order to probe for ideological perspectives; for instance, inquiries about course reading materials, possible beneficiaries of research, theoretical preferences, and so forth. When directly asking for the respondent's ideology it was helpful to request that they put themselves on a continum between 1 and 10 with the former being conservative and the latter being radical. Both the respondent's and the interviewer's perception of the respondent's ideology were recorded. The questions were organized in a funnelling fashion in order to faciliate respondents' co-operation (see Sudman & Bradburn, 1980, 221-
223): i.e. they were organized from general to specific, from
factual (e.g. courses taught) to more attitudinal. Personal demographic questions, such as income, gender, age, marital
status, were asked at the conclusion of the interview when it
was expected that the respondent would be more comfortable with 80 the interviewer and the interview schedule format.
In order to secure the best possible conditions for reliability and validity, and therefore accuracy, 20% (N=9) criminologists were interviewed in a pre-test. These were randomly selected from each institution. Through the pre-test, schedule flaws and inadequacies could be identified, permitting informed revisions. In addition, during the pre-test each respondent was queried regarding his/her opinion of the
interview schedule.
While there were very few critical comments on the schedule, the pre-test pointed to some necessary revisions.
These generally involved the deletion of questions rather than adding to or revising existing ones. It was clear that the desired information could be obtained without asking a wide variety of questions to elicit ideological orientation.
Considering that schedule revisions were minor, and did not detract from the information provided by the pre-test sample,
it was concluded that the data obtained in the pre-test would
be appropriate for inclusion in data analysis (see Appendix B
for an outline of the interview schedule). 81
The Interviews'
Interviews were conducted between mid-March and early July
1984. The time involved for each interview averaged 1.5 hours.
While most interviews took place in the respondent's office,
two were conducted via telephone and two were conducted in
hotel lobbies - these were done per respondent's request. All
interviews were conducted by the author.
Interviews were initiated with attention paid to
establishing rapport and providing the respondent with
information regarding the structure of the interview format.
While much of this had been mentioned in the introductory
letter, this review provided an opportunity to put the
respondent at ease and to probe for possible reservations. In
addition, respondents were informed that not all questions
might apply readily to their situation due to the variety of
criminologists that were being interviewed; for example,
academics and police instructors have different involvements in
the criminal justice system.
Ethics
In order to comply with ethical mandates, the interviews
followed the research principles outlined by the C.S.A.A. And
the University of British Columbia's Behavioural Sciences
Screening Committee. In the letter of introduction respondents
were informed that they it was not mandatory to answer all
questions and that they could withdraw from the interview at 82 any time. In addition, at the beginning of each interview respondents were informed that all information would be confidential. With the exception of the author, no other persons had access to specific information documented on the interview schedules. Respondents were also informed that all data acquired would coded and quantified, leaving no trace of individual identities.
The issue of ethics, including confidentiality, did not present any serious, known problems during the course of the research. With the exception of two respondents who were reluctant to reveal their income, all those interviewed answered all questions. There were a small number of respondents who did express concerns regarding the confidentiality of their information, but there was only one case in which this concern was expressed throughout the
interview." Respondents were informed that all data acquired during the interview would be coded for analytic purposes and
through quantification their identities would remain anonymous.
" Interestingly enough, this same respondent was especially adamant about obtaining information regarding the identities and participation of others interviewed. This information was refused. 83
Quantifying Data
A significant part of the research process involved quantifying interview data in order to summarize and assess relationships between criminological activities, ideological orientations, constraints, and so forth. Therefore, the construction of a code book and the coding process were essential steps in the research methodology (see Appendix C).
Considering that open-ended questions were being used, it was determined that 20 interviews would be completed prior to engaging in the decision-making for coding categories. This
facilitated the collection of a wide range of actual responses, thereby providing an adequate base from which to establish coding categories. Reducing the variety of responses for the contents of criminological activities and demographic
information did not present typification difficulties. There was a finite number of variations of teaching, research, publishing, consulting, and board positions, thereby limiting
response possibilities. Coding for ideological perspectives proved to be more complex.
Investigating the ideology of criminologists presented a
number of difficulties in question design and coding. As
previously mentioned, probing and direct questions regarding
respondents' ideology facilitated their identification.
Nevertheless, some problems arose in the coding of their
responses. These were overcome by establishing definitional
boundaries for conservative, liberal, and critical-radical 84 criminological ideology by referring to descriptive/analytic attempts to clarify ideological nomenclature in the professional literature; e.g. Taylor et al., 1975, Garofalo,
1978, Cullen & Gilbert, 1982, and Ratner, 1984.
Ideological fractions generally view conservatism as being primarily concerned with pragmatic and immediate issues and is therefore best characterized as a descriptive rather than theoretical endeavour. Considering that conservative thought is primarily concerned with maintaining social order, its law and order perspective generally accepts existing structural hierarchies and assumes that such belief systems mirror public consensus. In this view, criminological data is collected and passed on to administrators in order that CJS functioning can be improved. While there is a concern for change, it assumes that the CJS is a basically sound instrument of law and order, and that rapid changes should be avoided. Change tends to be focused inward on individual and organizational subsystems.
Due to the absence of theoretical tools, ideological, political, and structural concepts are seen as superfluous and are therefore generally omitted from criminological work. With reference to Gramsci's concept of intellectuals, conservatives are to be considered as "traditional" since they are oriented towards past forms of capitalist social relations. Therefore, conservative criminologists form the far right fraction of justice model advocates. 85
Liberalism gravitates toward a critical approach to social problems and therefore can be generally characterized as prescriptive or more concerned with issues of reform. It advocates ongoing research and institutional reform (e.g. CJS) as the means to correct social inequalities and injustices.
While there is a critical edge towards socio-economic practices, the structural foundations of capitalism are presumed to be sound and therefore the most viable form for democratic social organization. As Ratner (1984) outlines, liberalism is not an homogenous fraction but encompasses a variety of perspectives; for instance, systems-analysis, enlightened positivism, societal reaction, social conflict, and legal reformism. It is the scope of liberal perspectives that permits its popularity and dominance of the field. Such a scope facilitates the usage of theoretical tools in a manner conducive to pragmatic applications. Therefore, liberal criminology is favoured by state agencies. Nevertheless, macro-societal linkages are not emphasized, thereby diminishing the political significance of state, law, ideology, and economic relations. With reference to Gramsci's political
functions of intellectuals, liberal criminologists are
"organic" to modern capitalism and therefore constitute the main body and critical edge of justice model advocates.
As outlined in Chapter Two, critical-radical (neo-marxist) criminology begins by positing social inequalities and
injustices as essential features in capitalist modes of production. While institutional reform may improve social 86 conditions, such reforms have distinct limitations since their organizational mandates implicitly or explicitly function within and reproduce value structures such as, sexist and racist occupational practices. Critical-radical ideology begins with the political economy of crime or the integration of economics, ideology, law, and the state. It elucidates the political dynamics operative in individual and institutional practices with a tendency - to date - to lean towards theoretical rather than pragmatic concerns. As opposed to liberalism and conservatism, critical-radical ideology is concerned with large-scale social transformations and therefore transcends institutional reforms by emphasizing the need for structural changes; for instance, the elimination of sexist, racist, class, and nationalistic forms of domination.
Therefore, critical-radical criminologists are "organic" to socialist causes and social change. As a result, they are not favoured by state agencies and those who do function in the professional criminological field ordinarily defuse the presentation of their ideological position.
Once these definitional parameters had been established, it was possible to code ideological orientations more accurately and consistently. While it was important to document how criminologists defined themselves ideologically, the definitional parameters permitted secondary coding of respondents' ideology according to the interviewer's own perception of the respondents' professed ideological orientation in terms of the definitional criteria. 87
Data Analysis
After preparing the coded interview data for analysis, the desired cross-tabulations were identified. There were a number
of relationships that were of primary concern.
1. What is the distribution of criminologists in terms of their ideological orientation?
2. What is the relationship between their ideology and institutional affiliation?
3. What is the relationship between ideological perspectives and availability of work in non- teaching areas?
4. What is the relationship between teaching ideology and ideological orientations in non-teaching areas?
This chapter has outlined the manner in which data was
gathered for examining the political dynamics of criminology in
British Columbia. The following chapter displays the interview
results in the form of cross-tabulation tables and discussion,
chiefly in order to substantiate a liberal dominance and to
document the existence of gate-keeping devices which regulate
the ideological-political content of criminology. 88
CHAPTER FIVE
Results and Discussion
Introduction
It has been argued that criminology has been historically dominated by liberal ideology and has served the social control needs of the capitalist state. Piatt (1975), the Schwendingers
(1975), the School of Human Justice, and Ratner (1984) have maintained that the dominance of liberalism is not an accident
or fashion but reflects fundamental ongoing relationships
between the intellectual community, the state, and social
institutions. While there are criminologists who challenge
liberal hegemonic practices, the ideological-political status
quo is maintained partly through restricting employment
opportunities for dissident intellectuals, and by curtailing
their activities through funding -controls. In order to
substantiate this argument, I will now present the results of
the statistical analysis of the British Columbia interview
data. All data reported in this chapter are from the
respondents' responses to the interview schedule. The results,
presented in discussion and table format, verify that
criminology in British Columbia is dominated by liberal,
technocratic, and legalistic perspectives. Conservatism
closely follows in the shadow of liberalism thereby
establishing that mainstream criminology is bounded by justice
model ideology. Radical or counter-hegemonic intellectuals
have a subordinate place in British Columbian criminology in 89 terms of their numbers and the pressures they face to use mainstream perspectives in their activities. The interviews attest to the restrictions that radical criminologists experience as a result of their political-ideological orientations. They are considered to be overly critical and theoretical at the expense of producing pragmatic knowledge.
The following tables present data that substantiate these claims by examining the content and perspectives of conservative, liberal, and radical criminologists in their teaching, research, publishing, consulting, and board involvements. These results indicate that the historical tradition of liberalism dominating and regulating the production of knowledge remains a strong force in British
Columbia criminology. In addition, Gramsci's claims that intellectuals occupy a central position in the stabalization of hegemony, and that those advocating counter-hegemonic ideology are constrained, appear to be upheld in this study.
Criminology and Teaching Ideology
Tables III and IV show the distribution of conservative, liberal, and radical criminologists and their institutional and teaching affiliations. As anticipated, Table III shows that liberalism (53.3 percent) dominates the field followed by conservatism (31.1 percent). The relative isolation (15.6 percent) of political economy perspectives in criminology (see
Garofalo, 1978, Ratner, 1984) is substantiated by these 90 results.1 Table III
Criminology & Teaching Ideology
Number • Percent
Conservat ive 1 4 31.1
Liberal 24 53.3
Critical- 7 15.6 Radical
Total 45 100.00
Table IV illustrates the degree of institutional separation between the three ideologies. The points brought forward by
Gorz (1976), Braverman (1974), and Gramsci (1971) regarding the separation (alienation) between intellectual and other work appear to be substantiated. Table IV indicates that applied and basic training is centred in the Justice Institute and
Community colleges with research and theoretical training being more the mandate of the university. Nevertheless, as Tables V,
VI, and VIII support the Schwendingers's (1975) claims that mainstream criminology is entrenched in legalistic and
1 It had been hoped that a larger sample size for radical criminologists could have been included in the data analysis. Nevertheless, since all radicals appear to be located in university settings (see Table IV) and all British Columbian universities are included in the sample, it is to be assumed that the conclusions drawn from these radical respondents are representative of radical criminologists province-wide. 91 pragmatic issues.2 The following tables point to the substantive content of courses,and they demonstrate that even at the university level, the technocratic and legalistic focus of criminology prevails.3
Table IV
Ideology & Institutional Affiliation
University College J.I. Total
Conservative - 42.9 57.1 100.00
Liberal 62.5 20.8 16.7 100.00
Critical- 100.0 - - 100.00 Radical
Column Total 48.9 24.4 26.7 (22) (11) (12)
Now that the numbers and ideological and institutional distribution of criminologists have been established, the emphases that conservative, liberal, and radical criminologists place on crime and CJS issues related to racial, sexual,
international, and class differentiation and discrimination may be examined. Tables V, VI, VII, and VIII indicate that not only do liberal criminologists dominate the field numerically, but that the content of courses is primarily technocratic and
2 These tables also support Gorz's (1967) points regarding the technical nature of science, which, through its application supports class-based social relations.
3 Buckley (1983) outlines the pragmatic, pre-employment focus of courses at the university level. 92 legalistic. A number of liberal respondents reported the importance of "relevance" in teaching in terms of preparing students for careers in CJS branches. This documentation challenges pluralist assumptions regarding representative equality in the marketplace. In opposition to pluralist claims, the distinctly technocratic focus of criminology serves as an hegemonic vehicle for definitions of crime, legitimation of CJS power and subtly oppressive forms of state intervention.
Notwithstanding that there are some university faculty who engage in abstract reconceptualizations crime and state legal power, pragmatic needs of the CJS are a priority. As reported by one (university) respondent: "It is difficult to get students interested in theory and most courses are substantive and technically oriented in our department".
Rac ism: Table V indicates that racial issues of social control are dominated by perspectives focussing on immediate and pragmatic concerns rather than economic or ideological
structural dynamics. Table V verifies that of the three
ideological fractions, conservatives allocate the least amount of class time (57.1 percent) toward racial issues in crime and
CJS functioning. What attention is given revolves around pragmatic issues such as the management of racial/ethnic
frictions in policing and in corrections facilities.
Conservative respondents reported that they were concerned
about, "...cultural differences that create problems for police
- East Indian relations, such as the fact that in India the
police are corrupt and they continue to be uncooperative and 93 suspicious with us"'. Table V shows that liberals are more concerned than conservatives with racial issues of discrimination and differentiation in the CJS; for instance, the large percentage of the prison population who are Native
Indians. Nevertheless, only 4.2 percent of liberal criminologists orient any of their coursework around such issues. Table V also shows that all radical criminologists, in opposition to other ideological fractions, include racial issues in their teaching. They reported that their concerns focussed around, "...discrimination against Native Indians in the system similar to the Blacks in the States". Therefore, one can assume that radicals consider racism more of a priority issue than mainstream approaches. Nevertheless, only 14.3 percent of this group use racism as a focal issue in the classroom.
Table V
Ideology & Course Content on Racism
None Some Minor Major Row Focus Focus Total
Conservative 42.9 57. 1 31.1 (6) (8). - - (14)
Liberal 20.8 62.5 12.5 4.2 53.3 (5) (15) (3) (1 ) (24)
Critical- - 71 .4 14.3 14.3 15.6 Radical (5) (1) (1) (7)
:olumn Total 24.4 62.2 8.9 4.4 (11) (28) (4) (2) 94
Sexism: In comparison to the emphasis on racial issues,
Table VI indicates that there is generally more concern shown by all three ideological fractions regarding gender-related issues; for instance, sexual assault, and spousal assault.
Nevertheless, as expected, justice model groups pay less attention to this issue than do radicals and their concerns are primarily technocratic and legalistic rather than expressive of challenges to existing structural or political forces. For instance, conservative criminologists spend the least amount of their teaching time on such issues with 21.4 percent excluding gender. While 78.5 percent acknowledge such concerns, they tend to deal with procedural and technical inefficiencies
(e.g. increased laying of charges in spousal assault).
Liberals have considerably more interest in gender-related crimes and CJS inadequacies. Only 12.5 percent ignore these
issues and 4.2 percent design their courses to focus on such phenomenon. Their concerns are for increased policing protection for women, implementation of due process safeguards
for women, and other issues of male bias in CJS practices. One
liberal respondent strenuously argued the need to correct the patriarchal practices .within the police which, "...interferes with policing." As .in the case of racial issues, all radical criminologists include gender related legal issues in their courses. The majority of radicals (57.1 percent) have gender
as a significant variable in social control (see Smart, 1978)
while 28.6 percent organize their teaching around these
concerns. Nevertheless, while radicals include gender related 95 phenomena in their teaching more than do other ideological fractions, to date it remains a relatively low priority in the classroom (see Leonard, 1982). One radical respondent stated that, "Unfortunately, issues of sexism still do not receive the attention that is necessary."
Table VI
Ideology & Course Content on Sexism
None Some Minor Major Row Focus Focus Total
Conservat ive 21.4 71 .4 7.1 — 31.1 (3) (10) (1 ) (14)
Liberal 12.5 70.8 12.5 4.2 53.3 (3) (17) (3) (1 ) (24)
Critical- - 14.3 57. 1 28.6 15.6 Radical (1 ) (4) (2) (7)
Column Total 13.3 62.2 17.8 6.7 (6) (28) (8) (3)
Imperialism: From the data presented in Table VII, it would appear that ideology as a vehicle for international domination is not considered as an important variable in social control, as is sexism or racism. The vast majority of conservatives (92.9 percent) do not consider this issue. Those
that do (7.1 percent) devote little attention to this matter.
Conservative respondents report that their concerns in this area revolve around the unavailability of literature for
teaching in Canada. Secondly, they tend to focus on police 96
issues such as international powers of arrest and co-operation
and terrorism; especially, in terms of, "gearing up for Expo".
They stress the difficulties of locating course reading materials that are applicable for personnel training in the
Canadian context. While a large proportion (75 percent) of
liberal criminologists do not include this phenomenon in their
courses, 25 percent do include nationalistic issues such as the
inadequacies of literature and research for justice problems
specific to the Canadian context. Of these liberals, 4.2
percent report that they are interested in international
linkages of crime and social control models, and they design
classroom work around such issues as drug smuggling and
international CJS networks. All radical criminologists include
issues of imperialism in their teaching, although none treated
such issues as a central theme. They deal loosely with
economic and cultural dependency that is created through
systems of social control which reinforce international
bourgeois hegemony (see Riera, 1979, Camilleri, 1981). 97
Table VII
Ideology & Course Content on Imperialism
None Some Minor Major Row Focus Focus Total
Conservat ive 92.9 7.1 31.1 (13) (1 ) (14)
Liberal 75.0 12.5 8.3 4.2 53.3 (18) (3) (2) (1 ) (24)
Critical- - 28.6 71.4 - 15.6 Radical (2) (5) (7)
Column Total 68.9 13.3 15.6 2.2 (31 ) (6) (7) (1 )
Class: Table VIII illustrates the var ious ideological
fractions' concentration on class-related differentiation and discrimination in the CJS The results are similar to those dealing with racist, sexist, and imperialistic issues of legal discrimination in that their technocratic and legalist focus does not prompt scrutiny of structural or political dynamics.
These results concur with the historical tradition of liberal
dominance in criminological development (indicated in Chapter
Two) again indicating that the intellectual suppression of
counter-hegemonic fractions remains strong. Clearly,
conservative criminologists do not put much significance in
class (economic) distinctions. 50 percent exclude this
variable since they consider such issues as irrelevant to the 98 administration of criminal law. Respondents from the remaining
50 percent stated that they include class only as a procedural concern in terms of policing different socio-economic communities and dealing with corporate crime. Liberals tend to view socio-economic or class differentiations as a variable worthy of some concern. While 16.7 percent reported that they ignore class issues, 83.3 percent include them in their course coverage, and 12.5 percent view class as a central issue in the organization of social control. Nevertheless, liberals tended to report that their concerns with class deal with institutional reforms rather than endemic structural inequalities and injustice. In opposition to liberal and conservative fractions, and following from the historical traditions of marxist thought, all radical criminologists consider class as their focal point for analysing crime, mechanisms of social control, and political dynamics of social organization. As one radical respondent pointed out, "Class distinction is the starting point for radical analysis". 99
Table VIII
Ideology & Course Content on Class
None Some Minor Major Row Focus Focus Total
Conservat ive 50.0 42.9 7.1 - 31.1 (7) (6) (1 ) (14)
Liberal 16.7 45.8 25.0 12.5 53.3 (4) (11) (6) (3) (24)
Critical- - — - 100.0 15.6 Radical (7) (7)
Column Total 24.4 37.8 15.6 22.2 (11) (17) (7) (10)
Tables III through VIII have identified radical ideology as occupying a minority position in criminology. The small proportion of radicals indicates that institutional hiring practices favour mainstream perspectives thereby limiting access to alternate (e.g. counter-hegemonic) ideology. In addition, this analysis points to increased institutional constraints for those criminologists hired who have radical political-ideological orientations. A significant percentage
(57.1) of radicals reported teaching constraints as a result of
their ideology. While conservatives (7.1 percent) report some
difficulties of this nature, all liberals appear to be free of
such constraints therefore indicating that mainstream 1 00 criminology is promoted while radical perspectives are discouraged.
In addition to teaching constraints for radical criminologists, there is evidence that questions equal income opportunities between ideological fractions. Average (gross) income for conservatives can be estimated at $58,417 with
$55,125 for liberals. Radical criminologists follow with an average income of $41,142. While an analysis of income variance shows that there is a .11 significance factor, the income distribution documented in this sample does strongly suggest income correlates with ideological orientation.
Ideology and Research
Tables IX and X outline the relationship between criminologists' ideological orientations, their involvements, and constraints in research. The results uphold the contentions put forth by Galliher (1979) and Doob (1983) that criminological research is signficantly regulated through state
funding agencies. State regulation favours liberal rather than radical criminology as Tables IX and X indicate. Of the three
fractions not receiving funding, radical criminologists report
that they suffer the most with 25 percent excluded from assistance compared with 10 percent for conservatives and 9.1 percent of liberals. 101
Table IX shows that conservatives do not experience ideological inconsistencies between their teaching and research activities. Liberals tend to continue to employ liberal perspectives and they appear to have the freedom to include some descriptive and radical elements in their research.
Nevertheless, radicals (57.1 percent) shift their ideological orientation to a more liberal focus when engaged in research.
Through interview inquiries, radical respondents reported the need to use a less critical perspective and to "water down conclusions"" in order to comply with the pragmatic agendas of provincial and federal funding agencies."
Table IX
Teaching Ideology & Research Focus
Descriptive Reformist Critical- N/A Row Radical Total
Conservat ive 71.4 - - 28.6 31.1 (10) (4) (14)
Liberal 12.5 62.5 4.2 20.8 53.3 (3) (15) (1 ) (5) (24)
Crit ical^ - 57. 1 42.9 - 15.6 Radical (4) (3) (7)
Column Total 28.9 42.2 8.9 20.0 (13) (19) (4) (9)
* The Centre of Criminology is funded by the Ministries of the Attorney General and Solicitor General. Their Research Reports show an ongoing focus on pragmatic research; e.g. public perceptions of crime, mobile radio data systems, evaluation of robbery information, attitudes regarding capital punishment. 1 02
In addition to the adjustments which radical criminologists have to make in their ideological orientation in order to secure funding, Table X reports that 42.9 percent
stated that they directly experienced direct funding constraints as a result of their ideological-political
commitment. In fact, one radical respondent claimed to have
been "black listed" from various funding agencies due precisely
to ideological orientation. Table X also reports that 16.7
percent of liberals experience similar difficulties - this
fraction is comprised of those from the more critical edge of
liberalism (e.g. civil libertarianism). It is of importance to
note that the more pragmatically oriented the research, the
fewer restraints are placed on it; for instance, no
conservatives and only 48 percent of the liberals experienced
such difficulties.
Table X
Ideology & Research Constraints
No Access Funding Ideology N/A Row Total
Conservative 100.00 31.1 (14) (14)
Liberal 12.5 20.8 16.7 48.0 53.3 (3) (5) (4) (12) (24)
Critical- - 14.3 42.9 42.9 15.6 Radical (1) (3) (3) (7)
Column Total 6.7 13.3 15.6 64.4 (3) (6) (7) (29) 1 03
N/A = Have not experienced research constraints
Ideology and Publishing
Tables XI and XII illustrate the degree to which the different fractions participate in publishing and the constraints that they face as a result of their ideological- political commitments. Table XI establishes that radical criminologists shift their ideological perspective in a manner similar to that in their research. 71.4 percent employ a liberal perspective. Radical respondents testified that such a shift was a necessary strategy in order to have their work published in liberal journals, and that there are very few outlets for work employing a political economy or marxist perspective of crime.5 One radical respondent pointed out that tenure was a necessary goal to struggle for in order that career pressures could be eased thereby permitting more time
for writing for the public through magazines and papers. Table
XI also indicates that liberals and conservatives do not appear
to need to make such adjustments.
5 Most respondents reported that criminologists in univeristy settings must "publish or perish". Liberal perpectives are used a means to accomplish the former and avoid the latter. Liberal journals therefore perform a gatekeeper function in addition to advancing their preferred orientation. 1 04
Table XI
Ideology & Publication Orientation
Descr ipt ive Reformist Critical - N/A Row Radical Total
Conservat ive 21.4 78.6 31.1 (3) • (11) (14)
Liberal 16.7 62.5 - 20.8 53.3 (4) (15) (5) (24)
Critical- - 71 .4 28.6 - 15.6 Radical (5) (2) (7)
Column Total 15.6 44.4 4.4 35.6 (7) (20) (2) (16)
Table XII clearly indicates that those with a pragmat ic or ientat i on to publi shing experience
constraints. No conservative respondents reported experiencing
publishing constraints of any kind. Of the liberal
respondents, 87.5 do not experience any constraints.
Nevertheless, 8.3 percent did report that they have confronted
constraints as a result of their political orientation. One
liberal respondent contended that, "...criminal justice
branches are extremely sensitive to criticism from the outside,
especially the police". However, radical respondents reported
having serious problems in this regard. The majority (57.1
percent) lamented their problems with publishers who are less 105 attracted to marxist political economy analyses than to 'nuts and bolts' criminology. In terms of other types of publishing constraints, radicals (14.3) reported more difficulties than liberals (4.2 percent) conservatives (nil). These constraints were identified as relating to heavy teaching loads, or lack of career incentives (e.g. advancement). In sum, the interview data show that radical criminologists are more vunerable to publishing constraints than their liberal or conservative counterparts.
Table XII
Ideology & Publishing Constraints
Political- Other N/A Row Ideology Total
Conservat ive 100.00 31.1 (14) (14)
Liberal 8.3 4.2 87.5 53.3 (2) (1 ) (21 ) (24)
Critical- 57. 1 14.3 28.6 15.6 Radical (4) (1) (2) (7)
Column Total 13.3 4.4 82.2 (6) (2) (37) 106
Ideology and Consulting or Board Positions
Tables XIII and XIV outline the consulting and Board
involvements of criminologists, their ideological orientations, and constraints arising from these orientations. These results
support Galliher's (1979) claims that radical criminologists
(28.6 percent) are most subject to (government) consulting
constraints as a result of their political orientation. A
total of 4.2 percent of the liberal fraction reported
experiencing similar difficulties. Only 7.1 percent of the
conservative fraction experience consulting constraints and
none of these were a result of their ideological positions. Of
those involved in consulting, conservatives tend to restrict
themselves to provincial and federal CJS agencies. Liberals
also favour consulting for the government agencies but 8.2
percent donate their time to private/non-government
organizations with 4.2 percent of these being involved in
advocacy work. Due to their ideological shift toward
liberalism in non-teaching positions, radical criminologists
(42.9 percent) also engage in consultations with government
agencies. What does differ for radicals is that they are more
actively involved in advocacy work such as groups lobbying for
increased womens' protection or prisoners' rights (42.9
percent) and in non- government groups, than are their liberal
and conservative counterparts. 1 07
Table XIII
Ideology & Consulting Constraints
Political- Other N/A Row Ideology Total
Conservative 7.1 92.9 31.1 (1 ) (13) (14)
Liberal 4.2 - 95.8 53.3 (1 ) (23) (24)
Critical- 28.6 - 71 .4 15.6 Radical (2) (5) (7)
Column Total 6.7 2.2 91 . 1 (3) (1 ) (41 )
No respondents reported that they have difficulties in securing Board positions that they actively sought. For those positions that were desired the results are similar to those in consulting activities. Radicals' involvements in advocacy work
(42.9 percent) surpassed the combined total of the conservatives (none) and the liberals (8.3 percent). The emphasis on advocacy by radical criminologists suggests that they, imore than other ideological fractions, attempt to overcome the gulf between intellectual and practical knowledge through the dissemination of their skills in the community in the course of challenging institutional politics. This is not to suggest that conservative or liberal criminologists are unconcerned with social justice, but rather, that they use 1 08 government agencies as vehicles of social change thereby restricting the possibilities of social change to pre-existing state agendas.
Table XIV
Ideology & Board Positions
Pol ice Correct• Public Other N/A Row ions Advocacy Total
Conservat ive 14.3 28.5 7.1 50.0 31.1 (2) (4) (1 ) (7) (14)
Liberal 16.7 25.0 8.3 8.3 41.7 53.3 (4) (6) (2) (2) (10) (24)
Critical- - - 42.9 28.6 28.6 15.6 Radical (3) (2) (2) (7)
Column Total 13.3 22.3 15.6 11.1 42.4 (6) (10) (7) (5) (19)
Overview of Ideological Inconsistencies
Table XV provides an overview of ideological
inconsistencies that criminologists experience between their
teaching, research, publishing, consulting, and board
involvements. Such inconsistencies have been presented in
previous tables but the results shown in Table XV represent a
summary of ideological discrepancies drawn from an analysis of
all criminological activities. It is clear that conservatives
confront no such difficulties and are not required to make any 1 09
ideological adjustments in their professional activities. The vast majority of liberals (79.2 percent) also have no such problems. However, few radical criminologists appear to avoid such difficulties in their professional work (14.3 percent).
The implication of Table XV is that radical criminologists face pressures to conform to a justice model orientation based upon
liberal assumptions of social order. Consequently their alternative constructions of social justice are suppressed
through the regulation of their professional activities. These
results tend to affirm the relevance of Gramsci's views
regarding the political production and control of knowledge to criminological practices in British Columbia. The findings attest to the continued influence of the historic traditions of
liberal ideology in shaping the intellectual parameters of
capitalist hegemony.
Table XV
Ideological Inconsistencies
Yes No Row Total
Conservative 100.00 31.1 (14) (14)
Liberal 20.8 79.2 53.3 (5) (19) (24)
Critical- 85.7 14.3 15.6 Radical (6) (1 ) (7)
Column Total 24.4 75.6 (11) (=34) 110
This chapter has presented empirical research attesting to
the liberal dominance of criminology in British Columbia. It
has provided data which indicate that the historic situations
sketched in Chapter Two and Three are applicable in contemporary British Columbia. In the following and concluding
chapter, these findings are integrated with the historical and
theoretical observations made in earlier chapters. Such a
discussion will further explicate the findings reported in this
chapter and will outline the direction for future research
needed to' extend the argument begun in this thesis. 111
CHAPTER SIX
Conclusions
The Phenomenon
This thesis began by drawing attention to the recent explosive growth of criminology in Canada, a phenomenon which
reflects the state's concern over incipient social disorder and which has resulted in an expansion of the state coercive apparatus. As well, the growth of criminology has signified
increased state intervention (statization) in civil relations.
It has, of course, provided the knowledge base from which the
police, corrections, and judiciary have designed their
direction and forms of growth. Nevertheless, despite increased
criminal justice education and sundry administrative reforms,
crime rates continue to escalate. Chan & Ericson (1981) show
that there has been an increase in policing from 1.5 per 1,000
persons in 1962 to 2.3 per 1,000 (pp.50-51). Taylor (1983)
points out that this phenomenon, along with the plans for the
construction of 23 new penitentiaries, indicate the coercive
direction of Canadian CJS expansion (p.27). Yet, such state
strategies appear to have little deterrent effect on crime
(ibid., pp.25-27).
The previous pages have underscored the contradiction
between mounting criminal activity and the state's attempts to
advance its own legitimacy through the control of crime. The
study of this contradiction entails the examination of the 112
ideological character of the criminological enterprise as articulated amidst the economic and political crisis of late capitalist society.
It has been proposed that mainstream criminology is
predominantly a liberal enterprise in Canada (Ratner, 1983,
Ratner & McMullan, 1982), as is the case in other advanced
capitalist nations such as the United States (Schwendingers,
1975) and Britain (Taylor et al., 1973). These same authors
maintain that the dominance of liberal ideology is not
accidental but an essential feature of the cultural
reproductive apparatus of these societies (see Schwendingers,
1975, p.122). Yet, there has been a general reluctance to
investigate the ideological and political nature of criminal
justice education. Specifically, Ward and Webb (1984) testify
that:
Little or no consideration has been given to understand criminal justice programs either in their academic environment or in the larger society they are theoretically designed to serve. Few comparisons have been made between the development of criminal justice and the development of traditional academic disciplines (p.5).
The radical premise that criminology is quintessentially a
"liberal" enterprise was tested in British Columbia through the
research reported in this study. The results presented in
Chapter Five affirm that criminology, as practiced in British
Columbia, is predominately liberal and primarily concerned with
technocratic solutions to crime, social order, and injustice.
Consequently, the criminology profession tends to reinforce and
reproduce existing social relations rather than promote 113 alternative conceptions of social order and justice. These
findings also show that liberal ideology dominates criminology
through various state institutional controls such as hiring practices, funding, and other "gate-keeping" mechanisms.
Clearly, the arguments of radical criminologists regarding the
ideological flavour and political biases of criminology (in
British Columbia) are substantiated.1 This domination by
mainstream liberal criminology accounts for the dearth of
empirical work done by radical criminologists, especially in
Canada. Nevertheless, documentation of the sort provided in
this study remains limited without a theoretical framework
capable of explicating the ascendance of liberalism in
contemporary western societies.
Gramsci's ideas have been used to clarify the political
significance of the liberal domination of criminal justice
education and the ultimate frustration of liberal-democratic
justice. Gramsci's political theory of hegemony provides a
valuable conceptual tool for such analysis in a number of ways.
In contrast to most liberal and marxist intellectuals, his work
shows that he did not succumb to the temptation to seek
"general laws" of historical development. Nevertheless, he did
not entirely dismiss such accounts, instead developing a
1 This conclusion resonates with the works of Senna (1974), Kuyendall (1977), and Ward & Webb (1984) which document the overall technocratic orientation of criminal justice education in the United States. 1 1 4 refreshingly non-sectarian perspective on political process.2
The point of departure for his analysis of the political was the state. Central to this strategy is the identification of how individuals and groups come to constitute and reproduce social relations especially the role of intellectuals
(e.g. criminologists) in this process. Gramsci's conceptual innovations were powered by his rejuvenation of Marx's usage of historical materialism and praxis, in which the dialectic and integration of being-consciousness, objective/subjective and theory/practice provide the core for critical analysis.
The historical review in Chapter Two follows Gramsci's
(1971) concept of intellectual development. He observes that:
...the elaboration of intellectual strata in concrete reality does not take place on the terrain of abstract democracy but in accordance with very concrete traditional historical processes (p.11).
In other words, intellectual traditions have developed as a part of political and economic processes. By challenging
traditional bourgeois views of history Gramsci showed that
intellectual traditions have grown within and therefore
contributed to the ideological dominance of capitalist social
relations. Therefore, ideas, concepts, ; the theoretical
enterprise itself, are all part of the historically socio•
economic process and as such Gramsci rejects the determinism,
fatalism, and mystification features of formal theories which
2 While not within the scope of the endeavour, Gramsci's theoretical framework can be enriched by including fiscal considerations that are generated from the contradictions between capital accumulation and legitimation. Such forces, as outlined by O'Connor (1973) and Gough (1979) play a significant role in explaining the financial constraints on statization. 115 are submerged in scientific ideology. Considering that intellectuals are the generators of abstract knowledge and designs for its application, they provide a rich source for illuminating political struggle.
Going against the views of liberal intellectuals, liberalism as a political and moral system is not understood by theorists such as Gramsci as inevitable, universal, or evolutionary dynamics. Instead, liberalism and capitalism have developed simultaneously, which points to the socio-political nature of their inter-relationship. Liberal intellectuals such as Hobbes, Locke, and Bentham provided the impetus for the acceptance and eventual dominance of capitalist ideology and therefore the organizing of social relations founded upon inequality. In addition, through the impact of these liberal intellectuals, the power of knowledge in ordering social relations became more apparent, especially with the advent of modern science. This was directly applied to the social control requirements that arose from the disruptions caused by the inequities of capitalist society (e.g. crime, riots, strikes). Therefore, criminology as a profession was founded within a liberal ideological framework whose application was designed to organize social relations upon which class power was founded. The pioneers of criminology (e.g. Bentham,
Beccaria) played a crucial role in moving justice and its enforcement away from the community, as was the case in feudal society, towards a centralized state-controlled legal apparatus which depended, upon "experts" to design national, community, 1 1 6 and individual means for security. From the outset, intellectuals such as criminologists have primarily functioned as the intelligentsia of the capitalist state. As state technocrats, criminologists focussed on ameliorating social problems.
The class bias of these early intellectual state functionaries was readily apparent during the "Bloody Code".
The resulting social disorder culminated in the state's realization that "war of manoeuvre" (coercive) tactics were in themselves no longer effective means for social control.
Juxtaposed against this realization were the increased applications of "war of position" political strategies in which moral-intellectual forces played a central role (Boggs, 1976, pp.114-115). Intellectuals became key figures in political control since, "...the supremacy of a social group manifests itself in two ways, as 'domination' and as 'intellectual and moral leadership'" (Gramsci, 1971, p.57). Accordingly, criminologists were amongst those who engaged in a restructuring and humanizing of CJS practices in order to better control social disorder and to legitimize the increasing intervention of the state into civil affairs.
Through the expansion of "scientific" enterprises such as criminology, bourgeois views of social order became entrenched throughout society. The increased centralization of intellectual resources in the capitalist state resulted in the alienation of the community from the production of knowledge. 117
Early positivist criminologists, under the guise of non- ideological science, popularized "natural laws" of legal order, thereby introducing modern systems of social control (e.g. CJS) which theoretically served as state resources for liberty rather than domination, in contrast to the state of affairs during the Bloody Code era. Intellectuals, then, have historically played a central role in "war of position" political strategy, culminating in 20th century capitalist hegemony. In addition to popularizing liberal views of social order and social Darwinian notions of social inequalities,
intellectuals "organic" to capitalism were successful in disorganizing conflicting or counter-hegemonic views of
intellectuals "organic" to socialism.
The political traditions of liberalism became firmly entrenched in the 20th century and the role of intellectuals continued to expand with the scientific management of industry and society in general (i.e. Taylorism). As Gorz (1976) points
out, research has been become increasingly focussed upon
pragmatic concerns since the advent of this century and the
technocratic role of intellectuals has played an increasingly
significant role in all spheres of capitalist production
(p.162). The growth of criminology has been a part of the
state's expansion of its resources to dominate the "passive
revolution" in order to secure capitalist hegemony.3
3 Gramsci observed that ideological-political fractions were often absorbed or co-opted into each others ranks thereby realigning political strength (see Boggs, 1976, p.50). 1 18
Criminology has flourished in pursuit of a more sophisticated technical knowledge base in order to deter crime and maintain social order. Theoretical developments continued to exclude structural and political elements in the production of crime and the state social control apparatus, focussing instead on
issues of effectiveness and efficiency. Gorz (1976) explains the political dynamics of intellectual pragmatism:
For science and technology cannot be considered to be ideologically 'neutral'. They are conditioned by the purposes to which they are put by the bourgeoisie and by the constraints within which they perform their functions within the capitalist system. A system poses only such problems as it can resolve; or, more precisely, it tends to pose problems in such a way that they can be resolved without endangering the stability or the logic of the system (p.165).
With the outbreak of massive dissidence against authority
in the 1960's and 1970's the Canadian and American states
directed funding towards increased social control development,
thus fueling an unprecedented growth in criminology (see
Edwards, 1983). This growth continued to be directed by
liberal ideological traditions of the past two centuries,
including the pragmatic emphasis developed as a part of modern
Taylorism. Intellectuals such as criminologists were trained
by the thousands in order t.o fill the state's need for
specialized personnel to deal with the concrete problems of
managing crime and regaining the legitimacy of the CJS that has
increasingly come under attack since the 1960's and 1970's.
Here Gramsci's (1971) explanation for the political function of
intellectuals appears to be applicable to the rapid development 119 of criminology. He agues that intellectuals occupy a central position in social control since they concern themselves with the task of constructing "spontaneous consent" from civil society and provide technical expertise for the functioning of the legal and coercive apparatus of the state (p.12). As Ward
& Webb (1984) document, the recent proliferation of criminology has resulted in a well-trained but uncritical phalanx of practitioners, and in the design of politically palatable
research programmes (Ward & Webb, 1984, p.183).
The results of the interviews with B.C. criminologists
confirm one current instance of the ideological dominance of
liberal criminology and manifest the ongoing status of liberal
intellectual traditions (see Table III for an outline of
ideological distribution). The cross-tabulations show that
state restrictions by way of "gate-keeping" devices within the
criminological enterprise result in the reproduction of
underlying political currents in criminology that direct
intellectual work toward technical issues. Tables V, VI, VII,
and VIII show that educational institutions in B.C. strongly
favour mainstream criminology (e.g. legalistic issues) for
cirriculum design. Issues related to capitalist socio-economic
differentiations such as sexism, racism, class, and imperialism
occupy a subordinate position in the classroom, and when dealt
with tend to be approached in pragmatic terms. In addition,
institutional ideological restrictions undermine collective
research by radical (counter-hegemonic) criminologists and,
through subtle career pressures, direct research away from 120 structural and ideological concerns which threaten to debunk the legitimacy of the criminological enterprise. This is evidenced in Tables IX and X which show that research funding is directed to mainstream criminology while Tables XI and XII point to the publishing (and therefore career) constraints faced by radical criminologists. Tables XIII and XIV similarily show the favouring of mainstream criminology for consulting and board positions. As an overview of the results of state gate-keeping devices, Table XV shows that, in comparison to other ideological fractions, radical criminologists experience the greatest (85.7 percent) career pressures in terms of adopting pragmatic perspectives in order to maintain their occupational positions.
The continuation of liberal technocratic-ideological traditions has distinct effects on the outcome of CJS policies and practices. Succinctly, reforms have met with very limited success because they are structurally decontextualized and culturally unspecific as implemented. Capitalist social relations serve as an unexamined framework for social welfare and individual prosperity. The liberal state continues to divert enormous amounts of tax dollars into CJS reforms on the assumption that individual, situational, or institutional deficiencies are the chief causes of crime and social disorder
(Taylor, 1983, p.141), notwithstanding the discouraging
results. Alternative explanations are excluded from the
conventional discourse since they challenge fundamental liberal
premises. Consequently, the delicate balance between social 121 disorder, CJS policies, and public consent is maintained. Such a balance becomes more precarious as crime escalates, CJS expenditures rise, and rhetoric wears thin.
This thesis has drawn attention to the intellectual traditions of criminology, its ideological-political underpinnings and their current and effects in British
Columbia. The political role of criminologists has been approached in this manner in order to examine the historical function of intellectuals in organizing social hegemony and state domination. Since criminologists are responsible for providing the knowledge base for training CJS personnel and guiding research from which to plan social reform, they are at the center of this political stage. As outlined in the previous pages, their role is becoming increasingly politicized as the state penetrates further into civil society and increasing' sectors are indoctrinated to rely upon "experts" for information regarding the management of social problems (Gorz,
1976, Gramsci, 1971). The label of scientific neutrality can no longer be worn innocently. Indeed, all respondents in the
B.C. interview sample showed concern for the magnitude of injustice in Canada, hinting at underlying concerns about the directions and purposes of the criminological enterprise in
Canada. The rapid expansion of the entire Canadian CJS has apparently resulted in a cumbersome bureaucracy that is unable to achieve its mandate. This failure seems to be linked to the ideological constraints evident in liberal criminology which merely reproduce existing intellectual fractions and prevent 1 22 analysis of root problems underlying the social injustices
pervading Canadian society. What is needed, and what has been
begun by this study, is a reflexive analysis of the ideological
commitments of Canadian criminology in order for it to
emancipate itself from long-standing and patently defeatist
limitations. Gramsci's arguments and the research on hand
suggest it would be folly to expect that the 'organic'
intellectuals of liberal criminology will carry out this task.
This research has illustrated the need for a collective effort
to critically reflect upon the historical development of
Canadian criminology in order to examine its underlying
political dynamics and their socio-political conseguences in
Canadian society. Considering the strength of the liberal
tradition upon mainstream criminology, the task of organizing
the complexities of this collective, co-operative, and multi-
fractional task belongs to critical and radical criminologists. 123
APPENDIX A: Letter of Introduction
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 6303 N.W. MARINE DRIVE VANCOUVER, B.C., CANADA V6T 2B2
DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY
Dear ,
We are conducting an in-depth interview study of criminal justice educators in British Columbia. We will be talking with provincial educators who have teaching, research, consulting, or administrative involvements in the areas of criminology, deviance, or social control. Considering the tremendous growth of the justice system's educational facilities in recent years, it is important to systematically document and describe the types of involvements that its educators are engaged in as contributions to dealing with the various problems related to crime. In addition, it is as equally important to gain an understanding of the difficulties that educators encounter during the course of their teaching involvements. The results of this survey should prove of interest to all those involved in the criminology field, including policy makers. Since there is a limited number of such educators in this province, your participation is very important in order that your involvements and contributions are represented.
The survey consists of in-depth interviews that are approximately one hour in length. Although the interview format is not rigidly structured, it is designed to use the time as economically as possible within the outlined objectives. All information will be confidential and you may withdraw from the study at any time. We will be contacting you in a short while to give you further information about this project and to try to arrange an interview time that is convenient for you. To date, there is little overall documentation regarding the exact types of teaching and research involvements or the difficulties faced by criminal justice educators. In the interest of remedying this situation, we hope that you will have the time to participate in our study. At its conclusion, the results of the survey will be made available to participants.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly,
Dr. R.S. Ratner Bruce L. Arnold 1 24
APPENDIX B: Interview Schedule
Teaching Materials
1. Beginning with the most recent, which courses are you teaching or have you taught in the areas of criminal justice and criminology during the past three years?
2. For these courses, could you tell me what reading materials were/are required? Or, if possible, could you provide a reading list?
3. If you had your choice, what criminal justice and/or criminology courses would you prefer to teach? Why would these be your preferences?
4. Are there any factors which inhibit or preclude your offering these courses? If so, what might these be?
5. In the related fields of criminal justice and criminology, there are three major ideological/philosophical prespectives that guide teaching and research. These are the conservative, liberal, and radical perspectives. Applying these general terms, how would you describe the ideological orientation or perspective that you use in your courses?
6. Do any of your courses include issues related to racism? If so, which course(s) are they and which issue(s) do they consider?
7. Do any of your courses include issues related to sexism? If so, which course(s) are they and which issue(s) do they consider?
8. Do any of your courses include issues related to imperialism? If so, which course(s) are they and which issue(s) do they consider?
9. Do any of your courses include issues related to class differentiation or discriminaiton? If so, which course(s) are they and which issue(s) do they consider?
Research Involvements
1. Have you been involved in any research projects in the past three years?
2. If so, could you identify the project(s) and provide me with some.of details for each? For instance; their names, their principle conceiver and investigator, funders, the central problem being investigated, their results and the possible beneficiaries from the research.
3. Did any of your research projects include issues related to 1 25 racism? If so, which project(s) are they and which issue(s) did they consider?
4. Did any of your research projects include issues related to sexism? If so, which project(s) are they and which issue(s) did they consider?
5. Did any of your research projects include issues related to imperialism? If so, which project(s) are they and which issue(s) did they consider?
6. Did any of your projects include issues related to class differentiation or discrimination ? If so, which project(s) are they and which issue(s) did they consider?
7. In terms of the general ideological/philosophical perspectives mentioned earlier, which perspective would best describe the one used in your research involvements?
8. Have you ever been dissuaded or constrained from researching some topics?
9. If so, by whom and what forms did the constraints take? In addition, how did you respond to them?
Publishing Involvements
1. Have you had the opportunity to publish any articles, books, papers, reviews, etc. in the past three years? 2. If so, I would like to document some of the details of these publications in terms of their titles, objectives, perspectives used, and intended audiences.
3. Have any of your publications dealt with any issues related to racism? If so, which publication(s) was this and which issue(s) was of concern?
4. Have any of your publications dealt with any issues related to sexism? If so, which publication(s) was this and which issue(s) was of concern?
5. Have any of your publications dealt with any issues related to imperialism? If so, which publication(s) was this and which issue(s) was of concern?
6. Have any of your publications dealt with any issues related to class differentiation or discrimination? If so, which publication(s) was this and which issue(s) was of concern?
7. With reference to the general ideological/philosophical perspectives mentioned earlier in the interview, which would best describe the perspective characterizing your published work? 1 26
8. Have you experienced any constraints in your publishing? If so, could you briefly describe what they are and how you have responded to them?
Consulting Involvements
1. Have you had the opportunity to be involved in any consulting or advisory capacities during the past three years?
2. If so, what were/are your positions and and the nature of their function?
3. Have you experienced any difficulties in securing consulting or advisory positions? If you have, could you describe these difficulties and your responses to them?
Committee and Board Positions
1. During the past three years, have you sat on any boards or committees? If so, which were they and what areas of crime or the justice system did they deal with?
2. Have you experienced any difficulties in sitting on boards or committees? If so, could you describe these difficulties and your responses to them?
Ideological Discrepancies
1. With reference to the three general ideological prespectives mentioned earlier, would you say that the perspective that you use in the classroom is reflected in your other involvements and activites that you have mentioned?
2. If you have experienced some inconsistencies, which areas conflict with your classroom perspective and for which reasons?
3. Have these inconsistencies caused any difficulties for you in the carrying out of your work? If so, what difficulties are these and how have you responded to them?
4. Do you expect these problems to continue? If so, why is this?
Demographic Information
1 . Gender 2. Age 3. Marital status 4. Nationality 5. Dependent children 6. Approximate gross family income 7. Occupational title 8. Length of position/contract 9. Name of last educational degree/diploma 1 27
10. Place of last education 11. Other related employment 12. Career intentions 13. Political party voting preferences federally provinc ially. 1 28
APPENDIX C: Code Book
Educational Level: 1. university 2. community college 3. justice institute 4. other)L2 Gender: 1. female 2. ma1e
Age:
Marital Status: 1. single 2. married/common law 3. separated 4. divorced 5. widowed 6. other
Nationality: 1. Canadian 2. American 3. British 4. other
Racial Background: 1. white 2. black 3. oriental 4. asian 5. native Indian 6. other
Number of Dependent Children:)L 1. none 2.1 3. 2-3 4. 3 +
Gross Family Income:
Occupational Title: 1. instructor 2. assistant professor 3. associate professor 4. professor 5. director/administrator 6. consultant 7. other
Type of Position: 1. temporary non-renewable 2. temporary renewable 3. tenure track 1 29
4. tenured/permanent 5. contractual 6. other
Educational Degree: 1 . high school 2. Bachelors 3. Masters 4. Ph.D. 5. LL.B. 6. criminology/criminal justice dipl 7. combination of degrees 8. other
Place of Last Degree: 1. Canada 2. U.S. 3. Britain 4. other
Related Employment: 1. lawyer 2. academic 3. provincial CJS 4. federal CJS 5. none 6. other
Career Intentions: 1. continue in present position 2. seek career advancement 3. seek career change 4. uncertain 5. other
Political Voting Federally: 1. Conservative 2. Liberal 3. N.D.P. 4. other 5. no preference
Poltical Voting Provincially 1. Social Credit/Conservative 2. Liberal 3. N.D.P. 4. other 5. no preference 6. unable to vote
Course Type: 1. CJS personnel applied training 2. CJS systems management 3. research methods 1 30
4. theory consruction 5. review of criminology perspectives 6. CJS practices/functioning 7. other
Course Focus: 1 . acritical 2. descriptive 3. reformist 4. critical 5. other
Teaching Preference: 1. courses presently being taught 2. CJS systems management 3. CJS personnel applied training 4. research methods 5. theory construction 6. CJS practices/functioning 7. courses featuring more critical/radical-orientation 8. other
Reasons for not Teaching Preferred Courses: 1. budgetary 2. curriculum restraints 3. unacceptable ideological orientation 4. other 9. n/a
Teaching Ideology: Interviewer's Perception: 1. value-free 2. conservative 3. liberal 4. critical/radical 5. other
Teaching Ideology: Interviewee's Perception: 1. value-free 2. conservative 3. liberal 4. critical/radical 5. other
Teaching Focus on Racism: 1 . none 2. little attention 3. minor focus 4. major focus
Teaching Content on Racism: 1. descriptive 2. reformist 3. critical/radical 4. other 131
9. n/a
Teaching Focus on Sexism: 1. none 2. little attention 3. minor focus 4. major focus
Teaching Content on Sexism: 1. descriptive 2. reformist 3. critical/radical 4. other 9. n/a
Teaching Focus on Imperialism: 1. none 2. little attention 3. minor focus 4. major focus
Teaching Content on Imperialism: 1. descriptive 2. reformist 3. critical/radical 4. other 9. n/a
Teaching Focus on Classism: 1. none 2. little attention 3. minor focus 4. major focus
Teaching Content on Classism: 1. descriptive 2. reformist 3. critical/radical 4. other 9. n/a
Any Research Involvement: 1 . yes 2. no
Type of Research Involvement: 1. CJS applied techniques 2. CJS administration 3. theoretical problems 4. community attitudes and CJS 5. historical factors of crime/CJS 6. other 9. n/a 1 32
Focus of Research: 1. descriptive 2. reformist 3. critical/radical 4. other 9. n/a
Source of Research Funding: 1. none 2. provincial government 3. federal government 4. institution 5. other 9. n/a
Research Focus on Racism: 1. none 2. little attention 3. minor focus 4. major focus 9. n/a
Research Content on Racism: 1. descriptive 2. reformist 3. critical/radical 4. other 9. n/a
Research Focus on Sexism: 1. none 2. little attention 3. minor focus 4. major focus 9. n/a
Research Content on Sexism: 1. descriptive 2. reformist 3. critical/radical 4. other 9. n/a
Research Focus on Imperialism: 1 . none 2. little attention 3. minor focus 4. major focus 9. n/a
Research Content on Imperialism: 1 . descriptive 2. reformist 3. critical/radical 1 33
4. other 9. n/a
Research Focus on Classism: 1 . none 2. little attention 3. minor focus 4. major focus 9. n/a
Research Content on Classism: 1 . descriptive 2. reformist 3. critical/radical 4. other 9. n/a
Research Ideology: Interviewer's Perception: 1 . value free 2. conservative 3. liberal 4. critcal/radical 5. other 9. n/a
Research Ideology: Interviewee's Perception: 1 . value free 2. conservative 3. liberal 4. critcal/radical 5. other 9. n/a
Experienced Research Constraints: 1 . yes 2. no
Reasons for Research Constraints: 1. access 2. funding 3. institutional/departmental constraints 4. political-ideological orientation/content 5. other 9. n/a
Any Publications: 1 . yes 2. no
Publication Topics: 1. CJS applied techniques 2. CJS functioning/administration 3. theory of crime 4. history of crime/CJS 1 34
5. political economy of crime 6. other 9. n~a
Content of Publications: 1 . value free 2. descriptive 3. reformist 4. critcal/radical 5. other 9. n/a
Publication Focus on Racism: 1. none 2. little attention 3. minor focus 4. major focus 9. n/a
Publication Content on Racism: 1. descriptive 2. reformist 3. critical/radical 4. other 9. n/a
Publication Focus on Sexism: 1 . none 2. little attention 3. minor focus 4. major focus 9. n/a
Publication Content on Sexism: 1 . descriptive 2. reformist 3. critical/radical 4. other 9. n/a
Publication Focus on Imperialism: 1 . none 2. little attention 3. minor focus 4. major focus 9. n/a
Publication Content on Imperialism: 1 . descriptive 2. reformist 3. critical/radical 4. other 9. n/a 1 35
Publication Focus on Classism: 1. none 2. little attention 3. minor focus 4. major focus 9. n/a
Publication Content on Classism: 1. descriptive 2. reformist 3. critical/radical 4. other 9. n/a
Publication Ideology: Interviewer's Perception: 1. value free 2. conservative 3. liberal 4. critcal/radical 5. other 9. n/a
Publication Ideology: Interviewee's Perception: 1. value free 2. conservative 3. liberal 4. critcal/radical 5. other 9. n/a
Publication Constraints: 1 . yes 2. no
Reasons for Publishing Constraints: 1. time 2. lack of occupational incentives 3. no interest 4. political-ideological orientation/comtent 5. other 9. n/a
Consulting Involvements: 1 . yes 2. no
Consulting Employer: 1. provincial government 2. federal government 3. private 4. non-government 5. other 9. n/a 1 36
Experienced Difficulties in Securing Consulting: 1 . yes 2. no
Reasons for Consulting Difficulties: 1. political-ideological orientation 2. lack of expertise 3. other 9. n/a
Board of Committee Involvements: 1 . yes 2. no
Board/Committee Positions: 1. police 2. probation 3. penitentiary 4. corrections/parole 5. human rights advocacy 6. other 9. n/a
Difficulties in Securing Board Positions: 1 . yes 2. no Reasons for Difficulties in Securing Board Positions: 1. political-ideological orientation 2. lack of expertise 3. other 9. n/a
Ideological Discrepencies and Inconsistencies - Interviewer' 1 . yes 2. no
Ideological Discrepencies and Inconsistencies - Interviewee' 1. yes 2. no
Area of Ideological Discrepancy: 1. teaching-research 2. teaching-publishing 3. teaching-consulting/boards 4. teaching/publishing-all others 5. teaching-all others 6. other 7. research-all others 9. n/a
Reasons for Ideological Discrepancies: 1. political ideological orientation 2. departmental/institutional constraints 3. funding constraints 1 37
4. lack of pragmatic orietation 5. other 6. n/a
Ideological Discrepancy Difficulties: 1 . yes 2. no
Response to Ideological Discrepancy Difficulties: 1. make work more pragmatic as needed by funder 2. restict work to teaching 3. other 9. n/a
Resolutions to Ideological Difficulties Effective: 1 . yes 2. no 3. n/a
Ideological Discrepancies to Continue 1 . yes 2. no 3. n/a 1 38
REFERENCES
Adamson, W.L. 1980 Hegemony and Revolution. Los Angeles: University of Cali fornia.
Althusser, L. 1971 Lenin and Philosophy. London: New Left Books.
Babbie, E.R. 1973 Survey Research Methods. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Babbie, E.R. 1979 The Practice of Social Research. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Balkan, S., Berger, R. J., & Schmidt, J. 1980 Crime and Deviance in America. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Beattie, J.M. 1977 Attitudes Towards Crime and Punishment in Upper Canada:1830-1850. Toronto: Centre of Criminology.
Beverley, J. 1978 Higher Education and Capitalist Crisis. Socialist Review, 42 (8), 67-91.
Boerhringer, G.H. & Giles, D. 1977 Criminology and Neocolonialism: The Case of Papua New Guinea. Crime and Social Justice, Fall-Winter. 58- 62.
Boggs, C. 1976 Gramsci's Marxism. London: Pluto Press.
Boggs, C. Jr. 1972 Gramsci's "Prison Notebooks". Socialist Revolution, 11(2,5), 79-118.
Braverman, H. 1974 Labour and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the 20th Century. New York: Monthly Review. 1 39
Bridges, A.B. 1974 Nicos Poulantzas and the Marxist Theory of the State. Politics and Society, Winter, pp.161-190.
Bush, R. 1981 Racism and the Rise of the Right. Contemporary Marxism, 4, 40-47.
Bynum, T.S., Greene, J.R., & Webb, V. 1981 Apple Pie, Motherhood, & Crime Control: An Exploration of Faculty Attitudes. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, March. Philadelphia, Penn.
Camilleri, J. 1981 The Advanced Capitalist State and the Contemporary World Crisis. Science and Society, 45(2), 130-158.
Card, D.C. 1979 A Critical Analysis of the Formulation and Content of Bill C-13 (1878): An Act to Amend the Combines Investigation Act. Canadian Criminology Forum, 2, 31-43.
Carter, D.L. 1981 Issues and Trends in Higher Education for Police Officers. Issues and Trends in Criminal Justice Education, 8(5), 9-18.
Chan, J.B.L. & Ericson, R.V. 1981 Decarceration and the Economy of Penal Reform. Toronto: Centre of Criminology.
Chapman, T. L. 1980 Crime in Eighteenth Century England: E. P. Thompson and the Conflict Theory of Crime. Criminal Justice, 1 , 140-155.
Clark, L. & Lewis, D. 1977 Rape: The Price of Coercive Sexuality. Toronto: Women's Press. 1 40
Clarke, D.H. 1982 Justification for Punishment. Contemporary Crises, 6, 25-57.
Clinard, M.B. & Yeager, P.C. 1980 Corporate Crime. New York: Free Press.
Cohen, P. 1979 Policing the Working-Class. In B. Fine, R. Kinsey, J. Lea, S. Picciotto, & J. Young (Eds.), Capitalism and the Rule of Law. London: Hutchinson. 118-136.
Connidis, I. 1982 Rethinking Criminal Justice Research: A Systems Perspective. Toronto: Holt, Rhinehart, & Winston
Couse, K. , Geller, G., Harding, J., Haverman, P., Mantovich, R., & Schriml, R. 1983 (June) The False Promises of Criminology and the Promise of Justice. Paper presented at Learned Societies Conference, Vancouver.
Cullen, F. T. & Gilbert, K. E. 1982 Reaffirming Rehabilitation. Cincinnati: Anderson.
Dahl, T. S. 1977 State Intervention and Social Control in Nineteenth- Century Europe. Contemporary Crisis, 1 (2), 163-187.
Dandurand, Y. 1974 The Professional Criminologist in Canada. Criminology Made in Canada, 1, 153-160.
Donzelot, J. 1979 The Policing of Families. N.Y.: Pantheon Books.
Doob, A.N. 1983 Canada. Crime and Justice: An Annual Review, 5. 253-264. 141
Dowries, D. & Rock, P. 1982 Understanding Deviance: A Guide to the Sociology of Crime and Rule Breaking. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Edwards, J.L.J. 1983 Directing the Development of a University Centre of Criminology. Dalhousie Law Journal, 7(3), 850-886.
Emsley, C. 1983 Policing and its Context 1750-1870. London: MacMillan.
Entwistle, H. 1979 Antonio Gramsci: Conservative Schooling For Radical Politics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Fisher, B. & Hammack, F.M. 1978 Contradictions of Work: The New Left Professors. Socialist Review, 42 (8), 93-102.
Foucault, M. 1979 Discipline and Punish. New York: Random House.
Freidenberg, E.Z. 1971 The Side Effects of the Legal Process. In R.P. Wolff (Ed.), The Rule of Law. N.Y.: Simon & Schuster. 37-53.
Friedenberg, E.Z. 1980 The Punishment Industry in Canada. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 3, 273-284.
Galliher, J.F. 1978 Life and Death of Liberal Criminology. Contemporary Crises, 2, 245-263.
Galliher, J.F. 1979 Government Research Funding and Purchased Virtue: Some Examples From Criminology. Crime and Social Justice. Spring-Summer, 44-50. 142
Garofalo, J. 1978 Radical Criminology and Criminal Justice: Points of Divergence and Contact. Crime and Social Justice, Fall-Winter, 17-27.
Gaucher, B. 1983 On the Need for Specificity in Marxist Criminology: An Illustration. Canadian Criminology Forum, 6 (1), 35-48.
Gavigan, S. 1982 Women's Crime and Feminist Critiques: A Review of the Literature. Canadian Criminology Forum, 5 (1), 40- 53.
Gibbons, D. C. 1979 The Criminological Enterprise. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Giddons, A. 1981 A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism. London: MacMillan.
Gold, D.A., Lo, C.Y.H., & Wright, E.O. 1975 Recent Developments in Marxist Theories of the Capitalist State. Monthly Review, October, pp.29-43.
Gorz, A. 1976 Technology, Technicians and Class Struggle. In A. Gorz (Ed.), The Division of Labour: The Labour Process and Class-Struggle in Modern Capitalism. London: Harvester. 159-189.
Gosselin, L. 1982 Prisons in Canada. Montreal: Black Rose,
Gough, I. 1979 The Political Economy of the Welfare State. London: MacMillan Press.
Gouldner, A. W. 1970 The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. New York: Basic Books. 143
Gramsci, A. 1971 Selections From The Prison Notebooks. New York: International.
Greenberg, D. F. 1976 On One-Dimensional Marxist Criminology. Theory and Society, 3 , 611-621.
Greene, J.R. Bynum, T.S., & Webb, V. 1980 Crime Related Education: Faculty Roles, Values, and Expectations. Joint Commission on Criminology and Criminal Justice Education and Status. Washington: Federal Government Report.
Green, J.R., Bynum, T.S., & Webb, V. 1982 Paradigm Development in Crime Related Education: The Role of Significant Others. Paper presented at the meetings of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, March. Louisville, Kentucky.
Griffiths, C.T., Klein, J.F., & Verdon-Jones, S.N. Criminal Justice in Canada. Toronto: Butterworths.
Gurney, P. J. 1981 Historical Origins of Ideological Denial: The Case of Marx in American Sociology. The American Sociologists, 16 (August), 196-201.
Hagan, J. 1976 Locking Up the Indians: A Case for Law Reform. Canadian Forum, 55, 16-18.
Hobbes, T. 1958 Leviathan. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
Hobsbawm, E. J. 1962 The Age of Revolution 1789-1848. New York: Mentor,
Holloway, J. & Picciotto, S. 1978 )UB State and Capital^ London: Edward Arnold, 1 44
Ignatieff, M. 1978 A Just Measure of Pain. New York: Pantheon Books.
Ignatieff, M. 1981 State, Civil Society, & Total Institution: A Critique of Recent Social Histories of Punishment. Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, 5, 153-192.
Ingraham, B.L. & Sulton, A.T. 1981 Retrospective Look at Criminal Justice Graduate Education Through the Eyes of Alumni and Alumnae; An Expanded Replication of the Felkenes Report. Unpublished Paper, September. University of of Maryland.
Jessop, B. 1977 Recent Theories of the Capitalist State. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1, 353-373.
Kimmel, M. S. 1977 Immanual Wallerstein's The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century : A Review Essay. Contemporary Crises, 1 (3), 319-332.
Klyman,F. I. & Karman, T. A. 1974 A Perspective for Graduate-Level Education in Criminal Justice. Crime and Delinquency, 20 (2), 398-404.
Kuhn, T.S. 1962 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Kuykendall, J.L. 1977 Criminal Justice Programs in Higher Education: Course and Cirriculum Orientations. Journal of Criminal Justice, 5, 149-163'.
Leonard, E.B. 1982 Women, Crime, and Society. New York: Longman. 145
MacPherson, C. B. 1962 The Political Theory of Possesive Individualism. London: Oxford University. 17-31.
MacPherson, C. B. 1972 Politics: Post-Liberal Democracy? In R. Blackburn (Ed.), Ideology in Social Science. Bungay: Fontana.
MacPherson, C.B. 1977 The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy. London: Oxford University.
Manifesto, I. 1976 Challenging the Role of Technical Experts. In A. Gorz (Ed.), The Division of Labour: The Labour Process and Class-Struggle in Modern Capitalism. London: Harvester. 123-144.
Manning, P.K. & Redlinger, . 1979 The Political Economy of Field Work Ethics. In C. Klockars & F. O'Connor (Eds.), Deviancy and Decency. London: Sage. 125-148.
Ma r x, K. 1934 The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Moscow: Progress.
Ma r x, K. 1970 A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Moscow: Progess.
McMullan, J.L. & Ratner, R.S. 1983 State, Labour, and Justice in British Columbia. In T. Fleming & L.A. Visano (Eds.), Deviant Designations: Crime, Law, and Deviance in Canada. Toronto: Butterworths. 5-36.
Melossi, D. 1979 Institutions of Social Control and Capitalist Organization of Work. In B. Fine, R. Kinsey, J. Lea, S. Picciotto, & J. Young (Eds.), Capitalism and the Rule of Law. London: Hutchinson. 90-99. 1 46
Michalowski, R. J. 1977 Perspective and Paradigm: Structuring Criminological Thought. In R. F. Meier (Ed.), Theory in Criminology. Beverley Hills: Sage.
Miliband, R. 1973 The State in Capitalist Society. London: Quartet.
Mills, C.W. 1942 The Professional Ideology of Social Pathologists. American Journal of Sociology, 49(Sept), 525-552.
Morris, R. J. 1979 Class and Class Consciousness in the Industrial Revolution 1780-1850. London: MacMillan Press.
Myers, M. 1983 Labeling Theory's Response to the Attack from Left- Field. Canadian Criminology Forum, 6(1), 1-18.
Ono, S. 1967 The Limits of Bourgeois Pluralism. In CA. McCoy & J. Playford (Eds.), Apolitical Politics: A Critique of Behavioralism. New York: Crowell. 99-123.
Packer, H.L. 1964 Two Models of the Criminal Process. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 113 (1), 1-68.
Pearson, G. 1978 Goths and Vandels-Crime in History. Contemporary Crises, 2 (1), 119-139.
Petrunik, M. 1980 The Rise and Fall of "Labelling Theory": "The Construction and Destruction of a Sociological Strawman. The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 5 (3), 213-234.
Piatt, T. 1975 Prospects for a Radical Criminology in the USA. In I. Taylor, P. Walton, & J. Young (Eds.), Critical Criminology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 95- 112. 1 47
Piatt, A. & Takagi,' P. 1977 Intellectuals for Law and Order: A Critique of the New "Realists". Crime and Social Justice, Fall- Winter, 1-16.
Piatt, A. & Takagi, P. 1979 Biosocial Criminology: A Critique. Crime and Social Justice, Spring-Summer, 5-13.
Poulantzas, N. 1969 Political Power and Social Classes. London: New Left Books.
Poulantzas, N. 1974 Classes in Contemporary Capitalism. London: Lowe & Brydone.
Presthus, R. 1970 The Pluralist Framework. In H.S. Kariel (Ed.), Frontiers of Democratic Theory. New York: Random House. 274-304.
Quinney, R. 1977 Class State and Crime. New York: McKay,
Quinney, R. 1979 The Production of Criminology. Criminology, 16 (4), 445-457.
Rafter, N.H. & Natalizia, E.M. 1981 Marxist Feminism: Implications for Criminal Justice. Crime and Delinquency, 27 (1), 81-98.
Ratner, R.S. & McMullan, J. 1982 Radical versus Technocratic Analysis in the Study of Crime: Critique of Criminal Justice in Canada Canadian Journal of Criminology, 24 (4), 483-494.
Ratner, R. S. 1984 Inside the Liberal Boot: The Criminological Enterprise in Canada. Studies in Political Economy, 13 (Spring), 145-163. 1 48
Reasons, C.E. 1974 Race, Crime and the Criminologist. In C.E. Reasons (Ed.), The Criminologist: Crime and the Criminal. 89-98.
Reiman, J.H. & Headlee, S. 1981 Marxism and Criminal Justice Policy. Crime and Delinquency, 27 (1), 24-47.
Riera, A. 1979 Latin American Radical Criminology. Crime and Social Justice, Spring-Summer, 71-79.
Sachs, A. 1976 The Myth of Judicial Neutrality: The Male Monopoly Cases. In P. Carlen (Ed.), The Sociology of"Law. Hanley: Wood Mitchell. 104-133.
Schauffler, R. & Hannigan, M. 1974 Criminology at Berkeley: Resisting Academic Repression. Crime and Social Justice, 2, 42-47.
Schwendinger, H. & Schwendinger, J. 1974 The Sociologists of the Chair. New York: Basic.
Schwendinger, H., & Schwendinger, J. 1975 Defenders of Order or Guardians of Human Rights . In I. Taylor, P. Walton, & J. Young (Eds.),Critical Criminology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 113- 1 46.
Senna, J. J. 1974 Criminal Justice Higher Education-Its Growth and
Directions. ;Crime and Delinquency, 20 (2), 389-397.
Shaw, M. 1972 The Coming Crisis of Radical Sociology. In R. Blackburn (Ed.), Ideology in Social Science. Bungay: Fontana. 32-44.
Simon, R. 1982 Gramsci's Political Thought. London: Lawrence & Wishart. 1 49
Smandych, R. 1983 Marxism and the Creation of Law: Re-Examining the Origins of Canadian Anti-Combines Legislation, 1890- 1910. Canadian Criminology Forum, 6(1), 49-60.
Smart, C. 1977 Women, Crime, and Criminology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Smart, C. & Smart, B. (Eds.) 1978 Women, Sexuality, and Social Control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Spitzer, S. & Scull, A.T. Social Control in Historical Perspective: From Private to Public Responses to Crime. In D.F. Greenberg (Ed.), Corrections and Punishment. London: Sage. 265-286.
Sudman, S. & Bradburn, N.M. 1983 Asking Questions. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Szabo, D. 1975 Criminology, Justice and Society: The Role of Science in Social Policy. In R.J. McLean (Ed.), Education for Crime Prevention and Control. Springfield: Thomas. 119-129.
Taylor, I. 1983 Crime, Capitalism & Community, Toronto: Butterworths.
Taylor, I., Walton, P., & Young, J. 1973 The New Criminology: For a Social Theory of Deviance, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Taylor, I., Walton, P., & Young, J. 1975 Critical Criminology in Britain: Review and Prospects. In I. Taylor, P. Walton, & J. Young (Eds.),Critical Criminology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 6-62. 150
Ward, R.H. & Webb, V.J. 1984 Quest For Quality. New York: University Publicat ions.
Tepperman, L. 1977 Crime Control: The Urge Toward Authority. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
Toby, J. 1980 The New Criminology is the Old Baloney. In J.A. Inciardi (Ed.), Radical Criminology: The Coming Crisis. London: Sage. 124-132.
Weis, J.G. 1976 Liberation and Crime: The Invention of the New Female Criminal. Crime and Social Justice, Fall-Winter, 17- 27.
Weisser, M. R. 1979 Crime and Punishment In Early Modern Europe. Brighton: Harvester.
Women's Research Centre 1982 A Study of Protection for Battered Women. Vancouver: Women's Research Centre.