Contributions of Radical Feminism to Criminological Theory - Essay Example

? Contributions of Radical Feminism to Criminological Theory and Research A Discussion Paper Introduction The feminist criminology of the post-war period, particularly of the 1960s and 1970s, evidently questioned the general masculinist feature of theories of social control, crime, and deviance by citing the frequent misrepresentation and exclusion of women in British criminological theory and research. Recalling the post-war period, one can discover that before the revolutionary feminist efforts on sexual violence and domestic abuse, these kinds of violence against women were belittled, taken for granted, and disregarded (Moyer, 2001, 295). Similarly, women in disagreement with the law were ignored or ruled out in mainstream literature while sexualized, masculinised, and maligned in marginalised works that clutched on their corruption (ibid, p. 295). Intense gender discrimination, like the refusal of numerous law schools to give access to women, the frequent segregation of women from juries, and the habit of imposing to female and male ‘offenders’ different punishments for the same offences went mostly unquestioned (Lanier & Henry, 1998, 279). The scale of the victimisation of girls and women indicated that the lack of attention on the role of violence in the lives of women was the prime issue to appeal to the interest of feminist scholars and advocates. Due to this, a large volume of literature exists on the issue of victimisation of women, particularly in the subject matters of sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and domestic violence. Meanwhile, the identification of the breadths and forms of female victimisation had a considerable influence on policy making, and it is perhaps the most concrete contribution of radical feminism to mainstream criminology (Almeder, Koertge & Pinnick, 2003, 18). The influence of criminology and especially criminological theory was varied, although, partly because these crimes did not at appear to challenge. The impact on the field of criminology and particularly criminological theory was mixed, however, in part because these offenses did not initially seem to dispute androcentric criminology as such (ibid, p. 18). Rather, the notions of ‘victimology’ and ‘domestic violence’, while crucial in the development of feminist perspective of criminology, also provided mainstream criminologists and several practitioners of criminal justice an alternative way of understanding criminology theory and research (Flavin, 2001). The objective of this essay is to discuss the development of feminist criminology, focusing on the post-war period, especially the 1960s and 1970s. More particularly, the essay will focus on the contribution of the three feminist perspectives, namely, (1) feminist empiricism, (2) standpoint feminism, and (3) feminist postmodernism to British criminology theory and research. Feminist Perspectives of Criminology Feminist perspectives have remarkably grown in areas that have more established practices of interpretive knowledge like history and literature (Flavin, 2001). On the contrary, the tradition of criminology persists to be profoundly ingrained in the scientific method (ibid, p. 273). A great deal of British mainstream criminology is founded on principles that ‘science is value neural’ (Flavin, 2001, 273). Research can be duplicated, as argued by positivism, since researchers generate knowledge in related ways, making criminologists similar with each other (Almeder et al., 2003, 20). Richard Powers of the New York Times recognised the ‘vesting of authority in experiment’ (Flavin, 2001, 274) as the most outstanding thought of the new century. Yet, Powers (1999) argued that scholars “from Ludwig Wittgenstein to Thomas Kuhn and beyond” (ibid, p. 81) have mentioned, ... that fact and artefact may be closer than most empiricists are comfortable accepting... That great empiricists have rejected initial data on hunches, until their observations produced more acceptable numbers. That scientists need pre-existing theory and supposition even to ask the questions that will lead to data. That the shape of a question produces the data that answer it (Powers, 1999, p. 82). These issues rest at the core of feminist perspective. The most traditional feminist perspective, feminist empiricism, mainly recognises the importance of the scientific method, but emphasises that overlooking women or distorting their experiences and conditions is methodologically weak (Daly & Maher, 1998, 5). Feminist empiricism attempts to amend ‘bad science’ by means of stronger obedience to current standards of scientific investigation. This method has corrected inconsistencies in the representation of victimised women, the judicial handling of female offenders, and the experiences and situations of female criminal justice personnel (Daly & Maher, 1998, 5). Because feminist empiricism has largely adopted scientific methods and remains obedient to the theories of modernity it is strongly tied to mainstream scientific criminology. Per se, it can be said that feminist empiricism preserves its dedication to mainstream criminology, that realities about criminal act and causes of crime can be determined, and afterwards steps taken by means of policy making in order to lessen the prevalence of crime (Flavin, 2001). However, feminist empiricism also disagrees with some of the principles of empiricism, such as claims of objectivity and detachment. The major contribution of feminist empiricism is the emphasis on the way where in scientific methods in the social sciences, even though logical, has been misunderstood and misused (Daly & Maher, 1998). Advocates of feminist empiricism criticise the manner where in scientific objectivity conceals a prejudice that benefits men. It is at this point where feminist empiricism fits together with liberal feminism (Daly & Maher, 1998). On the contrary, other feminist perspectives, such as theories of feminist standpoint, transcend critiquing scientific tradition to questioning scientific ideas of mainstream criminology. A large number of feminists regard knowledge and science, and descriptions of femininity, masculinity, and crimes, to be socially contextualised and challenge how objectivity or detached knowledge is likely in a society that is greatly structured by class, race, and gender (Flavin, 2001, 275). As observed by scholar Sandra Harding (1991), “... [T]he subject of belief and of knowledge is never simply an individual, let alone an abstract one capable of transcending its own historical location. It is always an individual in a particular social situation” (ibid, p. 59). Theories of feminist standpoint state that the point of view of the researcher affects what is established. Advocates of feminist standpoint attempt to create knowledge from the point of view of the individuals being studied based on the point of view of that the disenfranchised or oppressed have a tendency to be less misrepresented (McDermott, 1992, 238). The powerful have more vested interests in confusing the situations that generate their influences and powers than the subordinated people have in masking the situations that generate their condition. Feminist postmodernism, on the other hand, challenges advocates of feminist standpoint for believing that women are a “clearly defined and uncontroversially given interest group” (Flavin, 2001, 275). Although advocates of positivism and modernism, such as feminists, argue that the fact can be identified given that all accept dutiful ways of working it out, critics of postmodernism express support for diverse truths that consider context (Flavin, 2001). A large number of criminologists believe that ‘truth’ usually reveals the viewpoint of influential people. Postmodernists go beyond this, challenging whether‘knowledge’ is predictable and discarding the beliefs that there is a general definition of justice, such as the ‘one that would be true for all people, all of the time’ (Flavin, 2001, 278). With this objective, postmodernism stresses the value of revolutionary theories and knowledge and often assumes the forms of evaluating the impacts of symbolic representation and language, such as how the law interprets various ‘kinds of female’ like ‘sex worker’ or ‘abusive mother’ (Wonders, 1999, 122). Scholars of feminism and postmodernism agree on a duty to correct gaps across varied groups with the intention of collaboration, not to reach a general knowledge of justice, but “to do our best to make judgments that make the world a good place to be” (ibid, 122). No matter where one belongs on the “knowledge is power/power is knowledge” (Flavin, 2001, 278), “knowledge is socially produced” (ibid, p. 278), and “knowledge is scientifically derived” (Flavin, 2001, 278) scale, it is difficult to envision an institution of criminal justice where knowledge is not important. However, seldom does it gain even fleeting recognition. Provided that one habitually comes across ‘psychopharmacology’, ‘bureaucratisation’, and ‘totalitarianism’ in scholarly literature, it is more than an issue of ‘knowledge’ being a term that does not simply slip off the mind (McDermott, 1992, 239). The feature of the term itself may add to the unwillingness to deal with it. It is way simpler to begin a discourse by declaring “The following are some of the major theories of crime causation...” (Flavin, 2001, 278) instead of challenging whether a person can even admit to ‘know’ the reason individuals perpetrate criminal acts or any other kind of ‘truth’. Challenging how knowledge should be or has been constructed can be troubling, and the investigation process, almost in theory, does not result in clear-cut, generally recognised explanations (Miller, 1998, 53). Even among advocates of feminism, this process has been depicted as agonising, if unavoidable and fruitful. At the core of the issue, certainly, is that most individuals were not mentally raised to value the relevance of knowledge, much less express it. However, acceptance of the value of knowledge and the partialities of the scientific method rests at the heart of revolutionising the discipline. Acquiring a greater knowledge of crime and gender necessitates not just correcting the inconsistencies in knowledge but also questioning the premises upon which current epistemology is founded on. Contributions of Feminist Perspectives to Criminological Theory and Research Accusations that criminology is ‘chauvinistic’ provoke opposition among scholars, professionals, and students who wrongly interpret the criticism to an assault on the gender of the researchers (Almeder et al., 2003, 23). The fact is that females are prone to ‘male-centred’ discrimination just as males are able to overpower it (Almeder et al. 2003, 23). Male supremacy of the field adds to ‘androcentricity’, yet is never the single root (ibid, 23-24). Preferably, theoretical development is rooted in a bigger literature, developing the ideas and strong points of earlier academic works. Earlier theorising concerning the connection between crime and gender has been severely hindered by the fact that traditionally, majority of it has concentrated on describing men’s victimisation and experiences of justice and believing these accounts also relate to women (Daly & Maher, 1998, 10). On the contrary, feminist research has supported criminological theory in two primary means: (1) by stressing the weaknesses of relating male criminality theories to women, and (2) by creating theories of women’s and men’s criminal behaviour (Flavin, 2001, 280). Academics, like Eileen Leonard and Dorie Klein, have exerted methodological efforts to relate conventional crime theories, such as Marxism, subcultural theory, differential association, labelling theory, and anomie theory, to women, and reported that these paradigms are inappropriate for clarifying patterns of women’s criminality (Flavin, 2001, 280). For instance, Robert Merton (1938) failed to relate his anomie theory to females. His assumption states that when individuals do not have acceptable means, such as a job, to realise socially recognised objectives, such as financial and material convenience, they experiment, such as stealing. Merton’s (1938) theory also states that monetary convenience is as crucial an objective for the females as it is for the males and falls short in addressing the reason women, who are unduly represented among the marginalised and impoverished and hence perhaps prone to more tension and stress than men, are less expected to offend. Moreover, feminists have evaluated other problems with more current theories that, although expressing indications of attempting to be more responsive to gender and women issues, also have weaknesses. One limitation arises when academics try to construct a ‘gender-neutral’ approach that generates no distinction concerning the validity of the theory to women and men (Flavin, 2001, 280). For instance, A General Theory of Crime by Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi (1990) tries to be gender-unbiased in talking about parenting and victimisation. Thereby, the authors failed to notice the fact that brutal victimisation is certainly not gender-unbiased; almost two-thirds of brutal victimisations of women are perpetrated by a person she is familiar with. Also, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argue that parents are identical in their effect in the process of socialisation, clearly overlooking parenting’s gendered nature. The negligence of the authors to inequalities between genders is shown by, according to Miller and Burack (1993), “both their gender-neutral stance when inappropriate and by lack of gender specificity when appropriate” (ibid, p. 116). Ever more, feminist research is playing as the foundation for crime and crime control theories (Flavin, 2001, 280). For instance, the Marxist feminist study of Julia and Herman Schwendinger (1983) entitled Rape and Inequality, relates the character and enormity of rape to gendered inequalities and class conflicts that are created by capitalism. The socialist feminist study of James Messerschmidt (1986) entitled Capitalism, Patriarchy, and Crime views both patriarchy and class as adding to the form and severity of crime. Radical feminist perspectives, which stress the function and masculine domination and patriarchy of the sexuality and labour of women, disputably have had more effect on domestic violence scholarship than any other theoretical paradigm (Lanier & Henry, 1998, 281). Another theoretical influence of feminist perspective has been to emphasise the lack of inquiry on maleness (ibid, p. 281). Men have been accepted as the standard in criminal justice to such an extent that their gender has been disregarded. The shortcoming of theories in criminology to deal with gender has resulted not just to the abandonment of women in criminological theory and research, but also to the obstruction of understanding that gender influences the experiences of men as well as those of women (Almeder et al., 2003, 25). Naffine (1996) identifies that “crime, men and masculinity have an intimate relationship, so intimate that we often fail to see it, and so intimate that it can seem natural” (ibid, p. 6). In the recent decade, the interest towards gender and women encourage the re-evaluation of what is ‘understood’ about the experiences of men and resulted in crime and masculinities research. A great deal of this scholarship depends on the ideas of Robert Connell (1995) of ‘emphasised femininity’ and ‘hegemonic masculinity’, specifically, as stated by Messerschmidt (1997) the “dominant forms of gender to which other types of masculinity and femininity are subordinated or opposed” (ibid, p. 10). In the United Kingdom, as well as in the United States, the governing, culturally accepted type of masculinity is founded on heterosexual, middle-class, White men and stresses attributes like rationality, influence, power, and suppression of girls and women (Moyer, 2001, 147). This scholarship stresses that class, gender, and race are not merely social creations, but also mechanisms requiring innovative individuals, instead of stagnant, definite factors (ibid, p. 147). Per se, class, race, and gender are not mutually relevant in every social context, but differ in relevance relying upon the setting. Crime offers one organised accepted way of instituting masculinity when other means are hampered because of one’s age, class, ethnicity, or race (Moyer, 2001, 147). Jana Bufkin (1999), for instance, depends on the structured action theory of Messerschmidt to explain how prejudiced crimes are a way of ‘constructing’ gender. Likewise, Jody Miller (1998) claims that although the men and women in her research stated same stimuli to steal, the means in which they perpetrate robbery underline the apparent gender inequality that is present on the streets. Males have a tendency to wield physical force and/or a weapon to deal with the victim, and usually target other males. As observed by Miller (1998), “male robbers... clearly view the act of robbery as a masculine accomplishment in which men compete with other men for money and status... The routine use of guns, physical contact, and violence in male-on-male robberies is a reflection of the masculine ideologies shaping men’s robberies” (ibid, p. 50-51). On the contrary, female robbers consider the gendered character of their setting by stealing from other women who are less believed than men to possess weapons and are seen as fragile and easily threatened (Miller, 1998, 51). Basically, overpowering male-centred theorising requires more than merely developing theories intended to describe male criminality to females or interpreting theories in gender-unbiased ways. It involves understanding gender as a social mechanism related to the behaviours of women and men. In comparison to the past three decades, more research and public policy attempts recognise the contributions of feminist theory (Daly & Maher, 1998, 12). Nonetheless, in general, feminist perspectives have not been completely applied in British mainstream criminology and as a result have not gained the same interest as branches of individualist theories, social control theories, and strain theories (ibid, pp. 12-13). Consequently, the ideas and wealth of feminist theory have yet to be broadly recognised. Right wing criminology, to a certain extent, deviates from the radical principles of feminism. The new right criminology introduces two primary models in explaining crime: right-wing libertarianism and conventional conservatism. There are mainly two wide-ranging issues in New Right; situating crime’s cause and effect to the person, and reinterpreting the significance of punishment and influence on criminal behaviour. Libertarianism and conservatism are quite related, since the two points of view have apparent connections to the earlier theories and models, though there are obvious distinctions in the basic understanding of crime. It is essential to consider the economical and political contexts of the period because theories of criminology are greatly influenced by the political and economic environment of the period. In general, the perspectives of New Right criminology can be assumed to have appeared because alternative perspectives had been unsuccessful. Hence scholars created the New Right approaches which are mostly summarised by earlier theories. However, the most important fact is that the primary stress of the model is punishment. In traditional conservatism, the concept of punishment can be thought of as a type of social justice; hence, it may not be appropriate to the criminal act. The notion that prisons and the larger criminal justice system should not be public but rather private mirror the theory of the free market economy at that period. Moreover, there is essentially no consideration of gender differentiation and minority groups, the reality that all appears to originate from the concept of free will does not result into anything good. Feminist criminology arose from the 1960s feminist development, as they appealed to transform gender stereotyped criminal justice system rooted in male-oriented beliefs. It is not merely for the criminals to settle their liabilities, but also for the larger society to have powerful symbolic influence on the public; specifically, implementation of punishment has a great impact on strengthening the moral unity among communities. Contributions of Feminist Perspectives to Research Methodology While advocates of feminist perspectives differ in their theoretical leaning and their viewpoints of how knowledge should be constructed and learned, according to Taylor & Rupp (1991), “there is not a distinctive feminist methodology but rather a feminist perspective on the research process” (ibid, p. 127). As the scholarly assumptions discussed throughout this essay explains, feminist criminological research makes up a significant and developed body of literature that raises, as stated by Naffine (1996), “some of the more difficult and interesting questions about the nature of (criminological) knowledge” (ibid, p. 4). For instance, [t]here are feminists who have carried out the more conventional (but necessary) empirical work of documenting sex bias within the criminal justice system. Feminists have questioned the scientific methods deployed by criminologists, as well as their highly orthodox approach to the nature of knowledge. Feminists have engaged with criminological theory, across the range, questioning its ability to provide general explanations of human behaviour. Feminists have provided an abundance of data about crime from the viewpoint of women (to counter the more usual viewpoint of men), and feminists have also helped to develop new epistemologies that question the very sense of writing from the perspective of a woman (or, for that matter, from the perspective of a man) (Naffine, 1996, p. 4). M. Joan McDermott (1992) argues that feminist scholarship has developed in a way that it is not simply a scholarship anymore, specifically ‘on, by, and for women’ (ibid, p. 238) but involves a bigger area of investigation. Feminist perspectives of the post-war period involve study ‘on’ gender that involves males and masculinity; it accepts that studies carried out ‘by’ a female cannot be generalised or applied to all the experiences of women (McDermott, 1992, 238-239). And, although staying dedicated to arguments ‘for’ women, feminist perspectives entirely try to benefit women and men (ibid, p. 239). However, one of the most complicated points of argument is discourse regarding the application of quantitative and qualitative research methods; a discussion that has been portrayed according to Jayartne & Stewart, 1991) as “sterile and based on false polarisation” (ibid, p. 85). In spite of the belief that feminist research is largely qualitative, as stated by Harding (1987), “feminist researchers use just about any and all of the methods... that traditional androcentric researchers have used. Of course, precisely how they carry out these methods of evidence gathering is often strikingly different... it is not by looking at research methods that one will be able to identify the distinctive features of the best of feminist research (ibid, p. 2-3). Feminist research is not entirely qualitative and it does not follow that all research that use qualitative methodologies are carried out from a feminist standpoint. Conclusions Even though feminist perspectives of the post-war period raise a difficult set of norms, the objective of these norms can be quite worthwhile. Feminist perspectives of the 1960s and 1970s offer an encouragement to policymakers, scholars, and criminologists to acknowledge the presence of gender discrimination, to exert an effort to understand its roots, and to strive toward determining and surpassing all kinds of prejudices that work throughout the institution of criminal justice. Feminist scholarship of the 1960s and 1970s has been very useful in drawing interest on the ‘universality of the issue’ of numerous established theoretical models but contributions of feminist perspectives to criminological theory and research have not been limited to the point of critique. References Almeder, R., Koertge, N., & Pinnick, C.L. (2003). Scrutinising Feminist Epistemology: An Examination of Gender in Science. UK: Rutgers University Press. Bufkin, J.L. (1999). ‘Bias crime as gendered behaviour’. Social Justice, 26, 155-176. Connell, R. (1995). Masculinities. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Daly, K. & Maher, L. (1998). Criminology at the Crossroads: Feminist Readings in Crime and Justice. New York: Oxford University Press. Flavin, J. (2001). ‘Feminism for the mainstream criminologist: An invitation’. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 271-285. Gottfredson, M. & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Harding, S. (ed.) (1987). Feminism and methodology: social science issues. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ. Press. Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Jayartne, T.E. & Stewart, A.J. (1991). Quantitative and qualitative methods in the social sciences: current feminist issues and practical strategies. In: M.M. Fonow & J.A. Cook (eds.), Beyond methodology: feminist scholarship as lived research (pp. 85-106). Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ. Press. Lanier, M.M. & Henry, S. (1998). Essential Criminology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. McDermott, M.J. (1992). ‘The personal is empirical: feminism, research methods, and criminal justice education’. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 3, 237-249. Messerschmidt, J.W. (1986). Capitalism, patriarchy, and crime. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield. Messerschmidt, J.W. (1997). Crime as structured action: gender, race, class, and crime in the making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Merton, R.K. (1938). ‘Social structure and anomie’. American Sociological Review, 3, 672-683. Miller, S. & Burack, C. (1993). ‘A critique of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: selective (in)attention to gender and power positions’. Women and Criminal Justice, 4, 115-134. Miller, J. (1998). ‘Up it up: gender and the accomplishment of street robbery’. Criminology, 36, 37-65. Moyer, I.L. (2001). Criminological theories: traditional and no-traditional voices and themes. UK: Sage Publications. Naffine, N. (1996). Feminism and criminology. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Powers, R. (1999). ‘Eyes Wide Open’. New York Times Magazine, April 28, pp. 80-83. Schwendiger, J. & Schwendiger, H. (1983). Rape and Inequality. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Taylor, V. & Rupp, L.J. (1991). Researching the women’s movement: we make our own history, but not just as we please. In M.M. Fonow & J. A. Cook (eds), Beyond methodology: feminist scholarship as lived research (pp. 119-132). Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ. Press. Wonders, N. (1999). Postmodern feminist criminology and social justice. In B.A. Arrigo (eds)., Social justice/criminal justice (pp. 111-128). Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth. Read More