The meanings of this term are quite broad, ranging from general liberalism to the most extreme forms of left-wing thought. This idealism permeates all social sciences. It is visible in educational sociology and is also reflected in the media. It is present in revolutionary knowledge systems and can also be seen in social structures. In the women’s liberation movement, it has penetrated to such an extent that if the term “women” in its literature were replaced with “working class,” those writings would resemble the works of socialist sociologists. This idealism has also influenced criminology; thus, it affects all aspects of Western society.
Its central focus is the role of the state, along with the ideas, concepts, and institutions that emanate from it. According to its proponents, it shapes human consciousness and determines the patterns of individual behavior. In criminology, its roots lie in the American labeling theory, but most of its development took place in Europe, where it formulated a strategy according to which crime could be taken out of the grip of criminal law and prisons could be abolished. It is understandable that most of its development occurred in countries with low income levels and where the etiological crisis appeared relatively late.
Before examining criminology from this perspective, it is necessary to keep in mind that the central aspect of this idealism is the primacy of administration or governance over social structure. The supporters of this view believe that the state’s administrative system determines society. Accordingly, in this school of thought, motivation among youth arises not from poverty but from the labels imposed upon them. A student does not fall behind because of his class background but because of the performance of the school. It is not life itself but mental hospitals that make people insane. Violence shown on television brings violence onto the streets (perhaps this has also happened in Pakistan).
Left-wing idealism is a revolutionary form of the social contract. According to its supporters, all people are equal, free, and rational, and in a just society they can come together to determine, through consensus, the rights and duties of government and the structure of society. In their view, existing social conditions are unjust. They contain class, gender, and racial inequalities. Inequality is present, and as a result, individuals at the lower levels begin to develop a resistant culture. However, the social puzzle remains: how does a world that is so unjust continue to sustain the capitalist system? And why is it that the majority of people, who suffer from class, gender, and racial inequalities, cannot unite to form a social contract based on equality?
According to the proponents of this idealism, the reason lies in the power of the ruling class. This power manifests itself in institutions ranging from mass media to schools, the criminal justice system, and politics, within which the ideology of the ruling class circulates. This ideology supports the values of the capitalist system, the patriarchal family structure, and the theory of racial superiority. In this way, class, racial, and gender discrimination are institutionalized from cradle to grave. Our concepts of being a normal human being, appropriate roles for both genders, a satisfied consumer, an obedient worker, or an honest citizen are all shaped by these dominant institutions. However, these concepts differ greatly from present realities. These differences and contradictions give rise to social conflict, and in order to control it, the police, the criminal justice system, and related institutions become necessary. Without them, it would not be possible to control the lower classes, who tend toward resistance. Thus, all institutions of society—whether ideological (such as schools or mass media) or coercive (such as the criminal justice system)—are part of a whole that sustains the existing social order.
For thinkers holding these views, the causes of crime are quite clear: the deprivation of the poor and the affluence of the rich. Therefore, it is incorrect to attribute crime solely to poverty, because crimes committed within wealthy classes and corporations (white-collar crimes) are entirely the product of affluence.
In the above explanations, social positivism appears quite clearly in its simplest form—that is, crime is an obvious and inevitable result of the struggle for survival. It is not a product of relative deprivation but of absolute deprivation. Such ideas are expressed in great detail in the works of revisionist historians, who view crime and law as reflections of class conflict. While the crimes of the working class are clearly visible, the crimes of the ruling class—whether committed within corporations or by the police—are more subtle and specific to that class. However, this school of thought tends to overlook the conditions that give rise to crime within particular corporations or that spread corruption and misconduct within the police.
In a society where inequality is visible everywhere, the crime statistics that hold ethnic minorities and the poor responsible for crime actually reflect the biased attitude of the police and the criminal justice system. The increase in the crime rate is a result of the increase in police strength. So far, we do not have any reliable measure to assess the crime rate. Left-wing idealism does not suggest that crime is not a problem for society; rather, its overall impression is that the issue of crime is exaggerated so that people remain unaware of the real problems of society—namely poverty and exploitation. Thus, when the poor are held responsible for crime, they are in fact being blamed for their poverty. In this way, two accusations are imposed upon the poor by the state: first, being poor, and second, the stigma of crime.
According to this idealism, controlling crime is not the responsibility of the police. The primary duty of the police is to maintain and restore order. In 1984, during the miners’ strike, English commentators wrote: “Undoubtedly, the primary responsibility of the English police is to maintain public order. Crime prevention and the arrest of criminals are secondary responsibilities.” Therefore, the increase in police numbers occurs on political grounds. Strikes, protests, and controlling those individuals who have been labeled as terrorists (such as political activists in Northern Ireland, and in other countries, Black people and other ethnic or regional minorities) are key factors behind the expansion of police forces. Crime is merely an excuse for increasing police strength.
In the view of this idealism, the classical concept of prison—beginning with Beccaria and extending to Radzinowicz—that prison serves the function of reforming misguided individuals and criminals, has failed. According to its proponents, prison is a means of dividing people. Many historians with a socialist orientation and those associated with left-wing idealism support this view that it is an instrument for sustaining the capitalist system. It serves two functions: the criminal justice system focuses attention on individuals, thereby diverting attention from the destructive aspects of the economic system, and by concentrating on criminals, it diverts public attention away from those in power and the wealthy, who benefit the most from the institutions of society.
It diverts public attention away from those in power and the wealthy, who benefit the most from the institutions of society.
However, the proponents of this school of thought overlook the fact that crime is the result of social disintegration and individualism. Most crimes arise from the breakdown of social cohesion. This idea is as valid today as it was in the nineteenth century, or even earlier. Therefore, it is incorrect to assume that prisons were established and maintained merely as a strategy to push out surplus population and disperse it. Although it may appear so, the reality is quite different. Most crimes are based on individual activity. The ruling class does not need to attribute these crimes to individuals artificially. It is not necessary to accept the analysis that isolates criminals and then impose it upon them. However, this does not mean a denial of punishment or disorder. Social and material conditions themselves give rise to individualism and anti-social behavior, and acknowledging this does not amount to endorsing classical or positivist theories. Classical and positivist approaches are two different poles of bourgeois thought, yet both analyze reality in a similar way, as they focus on only one aspect of it.
No Comments