Crime & Delinquency - University of Minnesota Duluth critical links between a capitalist system and...

http://cad.sagepub.com

Crime & Delinquency

DOI: 10.1177/001112878302900207 1983; 29; 283 Crime Delinquency

David O. Friedrichs Victimology: A Consideration of the Radical Critique

http://cad.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/2/283 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

National Council on Crime and Delinquency

can be found at:Crime & Delinquency Additional services and information for

http://cad.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://cad.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

© 1983 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. at UNIV OF MINNESOTA DULUTH on February 19, 2008 http://cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.nccd-crc.org/

http://cad.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://cad.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav


283

Victimology: A Considerationof the Radical Critique

David O. Friedrichs

The decade of the 1970s witnessed the full-fledged emergence of a new radicalparadigm in criminology and a new subdisciplinary area of concern, victimology.These two important developments have been quite independent and,indeed, have involved rather little direct interaction or reciprocal influence.In the present essay the often implicit-and occasionally explicit-radical conceptof crime victimization is delineated, with its roots in Marx and Engels’ originalformulations identified. The argument is advanced concerning the contemporarysituation that the radical understanding of victimization provides an importantcorrective to mainstream approaches and broadens the focus of our concept ofvictimization. An essential question addressed in this context is whether the radical

concept is too broad and diffuse to be meaningful. At the same time a frequentmainstream criticism of radical criminology has been its alleged rationalization ofconventional street crime and its consequent analytical disregard for problematicissues in victimology, as well as a basic insensitivity to the reality of predatoryviolence victimization. This allegation is examined critically. The essay concludeswith some projections on likely future directions of both radical criminology andcontemporary victimology.

The decade of the 1970s witnessed the full-fledged emergence of aradical paradigm in criminology; it was also a period during which a new sub-disciplinary area of concern, victimology, became a conspicuous and productivespecialty. I

Radical criminology and victimology have both challenged long-standingpremises of mainstream criminology: The radicals have challengedthe professed apoliticality of the discipline and have sought to demonstrate the

DAVID O. FRIEDRICHS: Associate Professor of Sociology/Criminal Justice, University ofScranton.

This article is a slightly revised version of a paper with the title &dquo;Crime Victimization: Positiveand Problematic Dimensions of the Radical Criminological Perspective,&dquo; presented at the FirstWorld Congress of Victimology, Washington, D.C., August 20-24, 1980. Preparation andpresentation of this paper were aided by University of Scranton travel and research grants, whichare gratefully acknowledged.

1. For a review of some of the major trends characterizing victimology in the 1970s see E. A.Fattah, "Some Recent Theoretical Developments in Victimology," Victimology, vol. 4, no. 2, 1979,pp.198-213. The emergence of the radical critique and of victimology were not the only significantdevelopments in the study of crime during this period, needless to say. The field of criminal justice,for example, expanded enormously (as a response to the great increase in public concern andimmense federal expenditures through the LEAA) and began to acquire an identity of its own. SeeFrank T. Morn, Academic Disciplines and Debates: An Essay on Criminal Justice and Criminology asProfession in Higher Education (Chicago: The Joint Commission on Criminology and CriminalJustice Education and Standards, 1980).



284

critical links between a capitalist system and the criminal law, the justicesystem and crime itself; students of victimology have challenged the almostexclusive attention of the discipline to &dquo;criminals&dquo; and official agencies of thestate which respond to them. At the beginning of the decade of the 1980s it canbe asserted that both radical criminology and victimology have become visibleand significant presences. It can also be asserted that after a feverish decade ofactivity dedicated to the establishment of a presence, and sometimes

characterized by polemical excesses, both radical criminology andvictimology may be entering a second phase. This phase calls for carefullyformulated responses to critics or skeptics and the development of a well-grounded body of studies substantiating-and perhaps qualifying-pioneeringpropositions and hypotheses. Radical criminology has been most vulnerable tocriticism by virtue of its alleged theoretical inadequacies and its failure tosubstantiate theoretical propositions empirically; victimology may be moreopen to challenge on the grounds of an excessively narrow, parochial focus andinattention to the context of a larger theoretical framework.But at this point I would like to make the following assertions: First, that thetwo developments indicated above have proceeded quite independently ofeach other, with little if any reciprocal influence; and second, that an importantpotential for reciprocal influence exists, and ought to be explored.

THEORETICAL ROOTS OF THE RADICAL CONCEPT OF VICTIMIZATION

I have elsewhere reviewed the emergence of radical criminology in the UnitedStates in some detail.2 For present purposes we may say that radical

criminology emerged in the 1970s as a response to radicalizing events in thelarger world (e.g., the Vietnam War) and the paradigm crisis within thediscipline of sociology, as well as related disciplines.3 On the one handmainstream criminologists were charged with not simply indifference tooppressive conditions producing crime and repressive policies carried out inthe name of law and order, but conscious or inadvertent complicity as well. Onthe other hand mainstream criminological theory was described as providing athoroughly inadequate and wrong-headed basis for understanding crime andcriminal justice in a capitalist society. If seminal insights linking crime andinjustice to an inequitable economic order emerge much earlier in Americanhistory, it was only in the 1970s that a full-fledged body of literature developed

2. See David O. Friedrichs, "Radical Criminology in the United States: An InterpretiveUnderstanding," in Radical Criminology: The Coming Crises, James A. Inciardi, ed. (Beverly Hills:Sage, 1980), pp. 35-60; a variety of other assessments of radical criminology can be found in theInciardi book.

3. Alvin Gouldner, The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology (New York: Basic, 1970); for a generalsurvey of the state of radical sociology see Richard Flacks and Gerald Turkel, "Radical Sociology:The Emergence of Neo-Marxian Perspectives in U.S. Sociology," in Annual Review of Sociology, R.Turner, J. Coleman, and R. C. Fox, eds. (Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Reviews, 1978), pp. 193-238.



285

which attempted to apply radical premises quite comprehensively to the studyof criminological phenomena. Inevitably this endeavor looked back to Marxand Engels for its basic theoretical framework.4 In recent years there has beenconsiderable debate and discussion with regard to the question of howlegitimate it is to speak of a Marxist criminology.5 Again, this is not the place toundertake an examination of this dialogue. We may say, however, that it isundeniably true that Marx and Engels did not systematically examine crime,criminal law and criminal justice; on the other hand, it may be argued that theirmore general theory, as well as scattered observations specifically pertinent tothe subject matter, do provide at the very least a basic point of departure forcontemporary radical criminology.6 Focusing more particularly on the issue ofvictimization, a general premise self-evident to even those with the mostsuperficial understanding of Marxist thought can be advanced: In a capitalist systemthe workers as a class are victims of the inevitable exploitation which resultsfrom private ownership of the means of production. The worst crimes, in effect,are those committed in the name of capitalism. And the elimination of criminalvictimization must begin with the structural reorganization—followingrevolution—of an inherently unjust society. But Engels, in his book, TheConditions of the Working Class in England, provides us with an even more directlystated conceptualization of the victimization of the workers due to the crimesof the owners:

If one individual inflicts a bodily injury upon another which leads to the deathof the person attacked we call it manslaughter; on the other hand, if the attackerknows beforehand that the blow will be fatal we call it murder. Murder has also

been committed if society places hundreds of workers in such a position that theyinevitably come to premature and unnatural ends. Their death is as violent as ifthey had been stabbed or shot. Murder has been committed if the workers havebeen forced by the strong arm of the law to go on living under such conditionsuntil death inevitably releases them. Murder has been committed if societyknows perfectly well that thousands of workers cannot avoid being sacrificed solong as these conditions are allowed to continue. Murder of this sort is just asculpable as the murder committed by an individual. But if society murders a

4. See Friedrichs, "Radical Criminology in the U.S.," p. 36; also, Mary A. Marzotto, "The Historyof Socialist Criminology: 1890-1920 (D. Crim. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley,1977). The present application of Marxism itself in American sociology is reviewed by MichaelHechter, "Notes on Marxism and Sociology in the USA," Theory and Society, November 1979, pp.377-83.

5. For one recent review of this debate see Steven Spitzer, "’Leftwing Criminology’: An InfantileDisorder?", in Inciardi, Radical Criminology, pp. 169-90.

6. A useful source of excerpts within this context is Maureen Cain and Alan Hunt, eds., Marx and

Engels on Law (London: Academic Press, 1979). The late Alvin Gouldner, The Two Marxisms (NewYork: Seabury, 1980) warns us against utilizing material from originally unpublished manuscriptsas a basis for proclaiming a Marxist position: Ideas in these manuscripts were often tentative, not

fully worked out, and subject to later rejection or repudiation.



286

worker it is a treacherous stab in the back against which a worker cannot defendhimself. At first sight it does not appear to be murder at all because responsibilityfor the death of the victim cannot be pinned on any individual assailant. Everyoneis responsible and yet no one is responsible, because it appears as if the victim hasdied from natural causes. If a worker dies no one places the responsibility for hisdeath on society, though some would realize that society has failed to take steps toprevent the victim from dying. But it is murder all the same.7

It might be argued that this indignant &dquo;indictment for homicide&dquo; directed ata capitalist society has been somewhat compromised by two significantdevelopments in the twentieth century: a movement toward greater safetystandards and regulations for factories and mines in capitalist societies,8 andthe countless murders committed by Stalin and others in the name ofcommunism. Going beyond the issue of homicide and genocide, crimevictimization is linked with the structure of a capitalist system in a variety ofways. Workers are deprived of the just return of their labor; the system alsogenerates absolute poverty, &dquo;false needs,&dquo; and psychic brutalization, whichpromotes criminal activity, and hence victimization. It should be noted here,however, that Marx did not condone the conventional criminal activity of thelumpen-proletariat, which not only contributed to the oppressive circumstancesof the poor but was ultimately counter-revolutionary as well.

In addition to the Marxist inspiration some of the theoretical (andbiographical) roots of contemporary radical criminological thought can betraced to structural-functionalism, interactionist (or labeling) and &dquo;non-

partisan&dquo; conflict perspectives; the exact nature of the relationship to theseantecedent approaches remains a matter of interpretive dispute.9 Radicalcriminology is best known through the body of work produced mainly in theperiod between 1970 and 1979 by Quinney, Chambliss, the Schwendingers,Platt, and various others in the United States, by Taylor, Walton, Young,Mungham, and various others in Great Britain, and by a number of scholarselsewhere;l° journals such as Crime and Social Justice, Contemporary Crises, andThe Insurgent Sociologist have been especially important sources for radicalwork, although less ideologically committed journals such as Social Problemshave also published radical contributions. Radical criminologists tend to beunited in their subscription to the broad outlines of Marxist theory, their

7. Friedrich Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England, translated by W. O. Hendersonand W. H. Chaldner (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1958), pp. 108-09.

8. Occupational health hazards and fatalities have hardly been eliminated; see Jeffrey H.Reiman, The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison (New York;: John Wiley, 1979), pp. 65-72, andCharles F. Reasons and William D. Perdue, The Ideology of Social Problems (Sherman Oaks, Calif.Alfred Publishing Co., 1981), pp. 358-60.

9. See essays by Friedrichs, Turk, Pottieger, Huff, and Schur, all in Inciardi, Radical Criminology;also, Thomas J. Bernard, "The Distinction Between Conflict and Radical Criminology," The Journalof Criminal Law and Criminology, Spring 1981, pp. 362-79.

10. See Friedrichs, "Radical Criminology in the U.S.," and Geoffrey Mungham, "The Career of aConfusion: Racial Criminology in Britain," in Inciardi, Radical Criminology, pp. 19-34.



287

avowed disaffiliation with mainstream theories and commitments, and theircritical stance toward contemporary American capitalist society, but there is nosingle party line or complex of specific propositions to which they uniformlyadhere. Hence the alleged &dquo;crises&dquo; in radical criminology. I The effect of thenew criminology (which incorporates the radical perspective) on the

discipline has been quite clearly established, however, and is likely to persist. 12In the next section some dimensions of a contemporary radical criminologicalperspective on victimization, especially insofar as it involves a critique ofvictimology, are identified.

CONTEMPORARY RADICAL CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMEVICTIMIZATION

It may be appropriate to begin an examination of the contemporary radicalcriminological perspective on victimization, and the radical critique of

victimology, with the views of Richard Quinney, who was the most prolific andoft-cited radical criminologist of the 1970s (and probably the most

controversial as well). Quinney, then, has provided us with the single mostsystematic statement of a radical perspective on crime and criminal justice.Elsewhere I have examined his work and career in some detai1.13 For presentpurposes discussion can be restricted to his concept of the victim.

In the early 1970s, following the publication of his seminal The Social Realityof Crime (1970), Quinney extended his interpretation of crime as a construct toan understanding of victimization. The concept of a victim, in effect, is implicitin the formulation of a criminal law; 14 insofar as the criminal law itself is taken toreflect the interests of the ruling class, the concept of victimization is likewiselimited. In this paper Quinney offered an early critique of the predominantfocus of an emerging field of victimology on victims of traditional,conventional crimes, as well as the limited scope of restitution programs.l5 Hisoverriding theme is that a view of reality promoted by a capitalist system limitsour concept of victimization; an alternative (radical) theory of reality wouldrender visible &dquo;victims of police force, the victims of war, the victims of the’correctional’ system, the victims of state violence, the victims of oppression ofany sort.&dquo;16 The revision of Quinney’s well-known typology of criminalbehavior systems (with Clinard) includes not only occupational crime butcorporate crime as well.17 And in the most recent revision of his basic textbook

11. Inciardi, Radical Criminology12. See William V. Pelfrey, "The New Criminology: Acceptance within Academe," in Inciardi,

Radical Criminology, pp. 233-244.13. Friedrichs, "Radical Criminology in the U.S.," pp. 45-51.14. Richard Quinney, "Who is the Victim?" Criminology, November 1972, p. 315.15. Ibid, pp. 317-20.16. Ibid, p. 321.17. Marshall Clinard and Richard Quinney, Criminal Behavior Systems. A Typology, 2nd ed. (New

York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973).



288

in criminology considerable attention is given to crimes of the state and of theeconomy, which involve broadly diffused forms of victimization.Is The role ofvictim precipitation in some forms of violent crime and evidence of changingpatterns of victimization is not denied; but the principal problem, reiterated inan adaptation of the 1972 paper, is that a critical consciousness of ourvictimization at the hands of an oppressive legal and social order remains to befully developed.19

Quinney’s views provide a point of departure for some elaboration. Crime-and thereby crime victimization-is defined by law; the radical criminologicalperspective challenges the explicit or implicit mainstream concept of law as apositive force based upon consensus, which impartially protects innocentmembers of society from harmful acts by predatory wrongdoers.20 If lawultimately expresses the interests of the capitalist enterprise it then follows that aformal concept of victimization is linked to these interests. Even victim

compensation laws which have been promoted by victimologists and others asspecifically benefitting individual victims are bound to be viewed somewhatmore cynically by radicals. By focusing on individual victimization, attention isdeflected from class victimization; victim compensation laws may be regardedas a strategic device to promote legitimacy, to demonstrate that the state istaking measures to aid crime victims (while failing, perhaps inevitably, to deteror prevent the complex of crimes committed in the name of capitalism). But inany case expenditures on behalf of victims of crime are quite negligible withinthe context of the economy as a whole.

Students of victimology remain wedded to the general conceptualization ofvictims as individuals, characterized perhaps by a configuration of personalattributes. Some victimological research has focused upon thedisproportionate incidence of victimization among lower-class members. Butthis is not quite the same as the radical concept of victimization as a classphenomenon; thus, it is one thing to acknowledge that lower-class individualsare more often victims of many of the index crimes because they are morelikely to live in high-crime areas, and another thing to see lower-class membersas victims of certain crimes by virtue of the fact that they occupy a subordinateposition in a stratified society. A radical concept of victimization suggests ato work out more fully the differences between victimization linked with purelypersonal attributes and victimization linked with class position. It remains

true that radical criminology stresses interclass variations and that victimology,on the whole, tends to stress intraclass variations, insofar as victimization isconcerned.

At least some victimological scholarship has advocated extending theconcept of victimization to include such categories as prostitutes, women in

18. Richard Quinney, Criminology, 2nd ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1979), p. 161.19. Ibid, pp. 238-39, 252-53.20. See Friedrichs, "Radical Criminology in the U.S.," p. 42.



289

general, the wrongfully accused, and the offender himself;21 however, suchadvocacy is still a minority voice within the field, and in any case need notcoincide with a structurally radical perspective. Parsonage has noted thereluctance of victimology to take into account criminal activity in which society(rather than the individual) is the victim, and Separovic advances an especiallybroad concept of &dquo;the victim&dquo; to include anyone who suffers either as a result ofruthless design or accident.22 Victimization by crime is ordinarily conceived ofas a result of intentional and deliberate violations of law. Victims of natural dis-

asters-floods, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, and the like-are usually not re-garded to be victims of crime, or human actions. In some instances, however,human inaction may be involved, insofar as public officials may have been dere-lict in their duty to take preventive measures directed toward minimizing the fatalconsequences of natural disasters; special interests may be involved in suchinaction. Many other types of &dquo;accidents&dquo;-including mine collapses, oil spills,the thalidomide tragedy, chemical pollution, and automobile crashes-may betraceable to willful negligence on the part of an ownership or managerial class;in the radical perspective the materialistic greed and self-interest promoted bya capitalist system insures the occurrence of such &dquo;accidents,&dquo;with the unpropertied classes the most common victims.23 The radical

perspective, following the lead of Engels, could be considered to regard thevery notion of &dquo;accident,&dquo; as commonly understood, as problematic. Butwhether &dquo;ruthless design&dquo; or alleged accident-or something in between-isinvolved, the economic structure and interrelated cultural value system areheld to produce a diffuse variety of forms of victimization. Herman and JuliaSchwendinger have argued in a number of essays that criminologists(including, presumably, students of victimology) should use the concept ofcrimes against humanity, such as imperialism, racism and sexism, as theirframe of reference, as opposed to the legal categories created by capitalistinterests.24 Mainstream concepts of victims, which are reflected, in general, invictimological studies, focus upon (for the most part) those who are conscious

21. Jennifer James, "The Prostitute as Victim," in The Victimization of Women, Jane R. Chapmanand Margaret Gates, eds. (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1978), pp. 175-201; J. R. Chapman, "The Economicsof Women’s Victimization," in Chapman and Gates, The Victimization of Women, pp. 251-68; DavidShichor, "The Wrongfully Accused and the Criminal Justice System," in Victimology: A New Focus,Vol. III, Israel Drapkin and Emilio Viano, eds. (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington, 1973), pp. 121-33; andJoseph Newman, "The Offender as the Victim," in Drapkin and Viano, Victimology, pp. 113-20.

22. William H. Parsonage, ed., Perspectives on Victimology (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1979), p. 10;Zvonimir P. Separomc, "Victimology: A New Approach in the Social Sciences," in Victimology. ANew Focus, Vol. I, Israel Drapkin and Emilio Viano, eds. (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington, 1974), p.16.

23. See Reiman, The Rich Get Richer, pp. 58, 72.24. Herman and Julia Schwendinger, "Defenders of Order or Guardians of Human Rights?"

Issues in Criminology, Summer 1970, pp. 123-57; "The Continuing Debate on the LegalisticApproach to the Definition of Crime," Issues in Criminology, Winter 1972, pp. 71-81; "Social Classand the Definition of Crime," Crime and Social Justice, Spring-Summer 1977, pp. 4-13.



290

of their victimization (not, in this context, quite synonymous with awareness ofvictimization). A radical concept of victimization directs substantially moreattention to nonconscious victimization, and in line with a commitment to

praxis aspires to promote consciousness of victimization at the hands ofcapitalist entrepreneurs.

Even within the legally established boundaries of illegal conduct,victimology (established on the premise that conventional, mainstream

criminology has neglected the victim) has itself largely reflected, to date, therelative inattention of mainstream criminology to governmental, corporate,and white collar crime and its victims. Over the past several years there hasbeen an upsurge in research and scholarship focusing upon this type ofactivity, with some attention to the victimization aspect. In their introductionto a recent collection of papers on white collar crime, Geis and Stotland

specifically assert that:

Economic malaise, caused by high inflation rates, recurring energy crises, andhigh unemployment, were contributing to more skeptical and critical stancestoward business integrity in the United States, a condition encouraged by therapid growth of a Marxist criminology with its derogation of capitalistenterprises.25

Schrager and Short found that organizational crimes with a potential forcausing physical harm were almost as seriously-if not equally seriously-regarded as conventional physical offenses in a poll of adult Americans;although other types of organizational crimes are as a rule still perceived as lessserious than conventional crime, there is some recent evidence that hostilitytoward white collar offenses is increasing.26 But Schrager and Short concedethat social scientists themselves may have inadvertently promoted the allegedlink between public apathy and official lenience toward corporate or

organizational crime. 27 The allegation of such complicity, as noted earlier, hasbeen a basic thesis of the radical criminological critique.

A consideration of the radical criminological concept of victimization muststill confront quite directly the matter of conventional crime. Inevitably,conventional crime is seen as a product of a capitalist society. Gordon, amongothers, has suggested that legal activity may be seen as a rational response to acapitalist system. 28 The predatory offender is in one sense a victim of aneconomic system which deprives him of his fair share of the common wealth;and in this context victims of predatory property crime in some instances are

25. Gilbert Geis and Ezra Stotland, White Collar Crime: Theory and Research, (Beverly Hills: Sage1980), p. 9.

26. Laura S. Schrager and James F. Short, Jr., "How Serious a Crime? Perceptions ofOrganizational and Common Crimes," in Geis and Stotland, White Collar Crime, pp. 21-23; see alsoMarvin Wolfgang, "Crime and Punishment," New York Times, March 2, 1980, IV, 21, 2.

27. Schrager and Short, "How Serious a Crime?" p. 29.28. David M. Gordon, "Capitalism, Class and Crime in America," Crime & Delinquency, April

1973, pp. 163-87.



291

those who have an excess or surplus of commodities upon which all membersof society depend, sometimes for their very survival. The conventionalproperty offender also responds to the generation of &dquo;false needs&dquo; in a

capitalist society, as suggested earlier. But whatever his motives or objectivesthe point need hardly be belabored that he is more liable to incarceration, andis in this sense himself a victim of an inequitable and unjust system.29 Thepsychic brutalization of such a system has also been referred to earlier, and thismay be linked with violent crime. With regard to rape, for example, theSchwendingers have argued that it is best understood in terms of a sexualdouble standard which is a &dquo;function of bourgeois domination;&dquo; altogethersexist crimes such as rape are &dquo;spawned&dquo; by the &dquo;socioeconomic and

ideological system.&dquo;30 It should be strongly emphasized, however, that

contemporary radical criminologists have clearly condemned any possibletendency on the part of some radicals to &dquo;romanticize&dquo; street crime; its

victims are recognized to be primarily the poor, and it simply addsto their oppression.31 An editorial in Crime and Social Justice argues thatradical criminologists can work against street crime but should becommitted to the transfer of power from state bureaucracies to the community,and to emphasizing the links between a capitalist system which deflectsattention from corporate crime and the persistence of street crime among thepoor. 32

In one of the most substantial attempts to deal with conventional streetcrime from a self-consciously radical perspective, Hall et al. see the Englishmugging crisis of the early 1970s as one form of a &dquo;moral panic&dquo; partlymanufactured by the media and the agencies of criminal justice, with an ultimate(manifest or latent) objective of generating support for the repressive policiesand control by the state.33 The need to promote consensus this way is a functionof the erosion of more traditional bases of consensus. It is necessary to note thatthe authors acknowledge the victimizing dimension of mugging, and they donot propose that mugging is best understood as consciously political activity;rather, they wish us to understand it within the context of presentdevelopments within the capitalist state. If street crime victimization is clearlyan evil it is ultimately a product of an evil system.

29. See Reiman, The Rich Get Richer, p. 128.30. Herman and Julia Schwendinger, "Rape Myths: In Legal, Theoretical and Everyday

Practice," Crime and Soaal Justice, Spring-Summer 1974, p. 25; see also Dorie Klein, "ViolenceAgainst Women: Some Considerations Regarding Its Causes and Its Elimination," Crime &

Delinquency, January 1981, pp. 64-80.31. See Tony Platt, "’Street Crime’—A View from the Left," Crime and Social Justice, Spring-

Summer 1978, pp. 30; S. Balkan, R J. Berger, and J. Schmidt, Crime and Deviance in America—ACritical Approach (Belmont, Caht Wadsworth, 1980) pp. 73-74.

32. Editorial, "The Politics of Street Crime," Crime and Social Justice, Spring-Summer 1976, pp.1-4.

33. S. Hall et al, Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order (London: Macmillan, 1978).



292

LIMITATIONS OF THE PRESENT RADICAL CONCEPT

Having sketched some basic dimensions of the radical concept of crimevictimization we may now attend to some of its limitations.

First, it may be argued that the preponderant radical emphasis on class andclass position glosses over or entirely obscures the complex of variables and theconfiguration of personal attributes of victims-some at least quiteindependent of class membership-which I believe victimological researchhas quite convincingly identified. Class-linked aspects of victimization mayindeed be primary and of critical import, but treating them as the exclusivebasis for explaining victimization oversimplifies a complex phenomenon.Relatedly, a sophisticated understanding of law may well begin with its roots inclass-based interests but is inadequate if it does not go beyond this level ofanalysis. Clearly at least some part of law addresses itself to activities wherein apervasive and authentic consensus exists on their general harmfulness; not alllaw is directed toward specific capitalist objectives. If victimization is

ultimately defined by law it should be noted that the state, in a capitalisteconomy, has some interests which transcend the immediate interests of the

capitalist ownership class. Within this context one can differentiate betweeninstrumental and structural Marxist theoretical approaches; it is increasinglyrecognized that the interests of capitalist entrepreneurs and of the stateapparatus need not always coincide directly and immediately, although thepreservation of the capitalist economic system is the ultimate, long-rangeobj ective.34

But it might be posited that both instrumental and structural versions ofMarxist or radical analysis tend to lose sight of the victim of crime as anindividual, an afflicted human being. I have elsewhere evaluated some ofthe strengths and weaknesses of radical criminology, and have suggested that itmight resolve its not entirely satisfactory treatment of the person by directingmore attention to socialist or Marxist humanism.35 We have already noted therepudiation of a romanticization of street crime; and practical strategiesdesigned to reduce street crime victimization are not necessarily regarded asincompatible with the radical commitment. Nevertheless, the perceivedinsensitivity of radical criminology with regard to the immediate suffering ofvictims of conventional, predatory crime probably diminishes the effect of its

34. See D. A. Gold, C.Y.H. Lo, and E. O. Wright, "Recent Developments in Marxist Theories ofthe Capitalist State," Monthly Review, October/November 1975, pp. 23-43, 36-51; Piers Beirne,"Empiricism and the Critique of Marxism on Law and Crime," Social Problems, April 1979, pp. 373-85 ; Richard Quinney, Class, State and Crime, 2nd ed. (New York: Longman, 1980), pp. 72-125;Jeffrey H. Reiman and Sue Headlee, "Marxism and Criminal Justice Policy," Crime & Delinquency,January 1981, pp. 24-47.

35. David O. Friedrichs, "Radical Criminology in the U.S.," and "Carl Klockars vs. the ’HeavyHitters’: A Preliminary Critique," in Inciardi, Radical Criminology, pp. 35-60 and 149-60; "Crime,Deviance, and Criminal Justice: In Search of a Radical Humanistic Perspecitve," Humanity &Society, August 1982, pp. 200-26.



293

ultimately humanistic message. In effect, radical criminology advances theclassic Marxist vision of a society wherein all types of criminal victimization-including the most pervasive and brutal, capitalist exploitation-will have beeneliminated. By focusing on the need for such a society the immediate problemsof everyday crime victimization achieve a lower order of significance. This isinevitably unsatisfactory to many, especially since profound skepticism isdirected at the millenial promises of the radicals.36 Certainly the vast and variedforms of victimization perpetrated in the name of revolutionary socialisticobjectives understandably and unavoidably contribute to this skepticism. Andvarious theoretical and philosophical perspectives challenge the explicit orimplicit Marxist concept of human nature: most particularly, that the completeelimination of the predatory impulse is possible. 37

CONCLUDING DISCUSSION

It seems likely that most victimological research and writing in the foreseeablefuture will proceed within the framework of mainstream, essentiallypositivistic, criminological assumptions and methods. Fattah identifies a recentshift from the early concerns of victimology with descriptive and empiricalstudies of the correlates (and consequences) of victimization to an emergingconcern with promoting victim consciousness and the extension of victim’srights; he attributes these current trends to a rightist shift in public opinion, themounting influence of feminism, and a decline in basic research.38 Elsewhere Ihave discussed emerging and projected patterns of developmentin radical criminology: I discern a move in several directions,including the continued theoretical and praxis-oriented development of a neo-Marxist perspective (although with increasingly evident differences betweenthose with a structural and an instrumental orientation), a reconciliation bysome radicals with at least a version of the humanistic perspective, and anapplication of sociological positivism to systematically test more radicalpropositions and hypotheses by still others subscribing to its basic tenets.39

The claim is herein submitted that victimology, if it is to advance more fullyour understanding of criminal victimization, must confront and come to termswith the thesis advanced by the radical criminological perspective. Crimevictimization is surely a complex and many-hued phenomenon; but a basicpoint of departure for understanding it must be an appreciation of the political

36. See Carl B. Klockars, "The Contemporary Crisis of Marxist Criminology," in Inciardi,Radical Criminology, pp. 92-123.

37. See David O. Friedrichs, "Violence and the Politics of Crime," Social Research, Spring 1981,pp. 135-56.

38. Fattah, "Some Recent Theoretical Developments in Victimology," pp. 198-99; for a recentvolume of articles reflecting the concerns of the victimological "mainstream" see Burt Galaway andJoe Hudson, Perspectives on Crime Victims (St. Louis: The C. V. Mosby Company. 1981).

39. Friedrichs, "Radical Criminology in the U.S.," p. 52.



294

economic context within which it occurs. Can victimology orient itself bothacademically and actively toward the radical concept of victimization withoutseriously compromising its effect on the more conventional forms ofvictimization? Can victimology contend with radical criminology withoutengaging in blatant cooptation? And is it possible that victimologists-byvirtue of their chosen specialization-are even more resistant to adopting theradical stance than most mainstream criminologists? These are questionswhich remain to be answered. In view of the present troubled state of thecapitalist economy (and regardless of the political mood of the moment) theradical interpretation is likely to endure, and may well extend its influence.

Some of the shortcomings of the radical criminological perspective onconventional crime have been noted. With regard to such types of illegalactivity as organizational and white collar offenses it has been variouslysuggested that neither victimology nor Marxist criminology presentlyprovides us with a fully developed understanding.40 Radical criminologyprovides a basic framework within which the exploitative patterns of corporatecrime can be understood, as well as a value-based orientation stressing itsrelative significance and impact; at the same time it may not entirely account formotivational patterns and legal responses to it. Victimology compels studentsof white collar crime to consider more fully both the active role of victims aswell as the direct and indirect effect of victimization, but the types of victimsand consequences of white collar crime have not been thoroughly explored todate.

A starting point for a more direct confrontation between radical

criminology and victimology must be the development of a typology whichdifferentiates clearly between the varieties of victimization, identifies as

substantially as possible their myriad dimensions, and achieves a balancedperspective toward them. Cross-cultural and international comparativestudies are especially critical toward the resolution of this confrontation. Howsuccessfully the contradictions between radical criminology and victimologyare worked out may help determine the ultimate potency of their influence onthe criminological enterprise.

40. D. Vaughan, "Crime Between Organizations: Implications for Victimology," in Geis andStotland, White Collar Crime, p. 45, and W. G. Carson, "The Institutionalization of Ambiguity:Early British Factory Acts," in Geis and Stotland, White Collar Crime, p. 120. See also Harold C.Barnett, "Corporate Capitalism, Corporate Crime," Crime & Delinquency, January 1981, pp. 4-23.



Crime & Delinquency - University of Minnesota Duluth critical links between a capitalist system and...

Documents

Transcript of Crime & Delinquency - University of Minnesota Duluth critical links between a capitalist system and...