For Critical (Marxist) theories of crime the focusis on the creation and application of laws incapitalist societies and how, as Croall (2001)argues, "The criminal law and its enforcementreflect the interests of the powerful and are ameans of controlling the activities of powerlesslower-class offenders".

Milliband (1973), for example, suggests lawsfavouring the general interests of a ruling classare an extension of its political and ideologicaldominance - an Instrumental form of Marxismthat sees the law as a tool used to control theworking classes.

Poulantzas (1975), however, argues that whilecontemporary capitalist societies need laws thatbenefit the interests of the ruling class, theselaws have (lesser) benefits for subject classes.This form of Hegemonic Marxism sees a rulingclass as able to head-off class conflicts by co-opting subject classes into the benefits ofcapitalism and the "rule of law" (as opposed tothe underlying reality - the rule of Capital).

More generally, critical theory sees laws asbeing framed to protect and enhance twothings:

1. Social order: relates to things like the legalityof killing people, violent behaviour and so forth.While everyone benefits from being able to goabout their daily lives unmolested, a ruling classgains additional benefits; an orderly society isone where those making the greatest profitsgets to keep their wealth safely secured.

2. Property / contract laws relate to therequirements of capitalism as an economicsystem; they exist to enshrine in law certainrights, such as private property ownership.While everyone benefits from a law againsttheft, those with the most to lose again reap thegreatest benefit.

For Marxists crime is part of a structuralprocess that sees the working class as bothmore criminal and more criminalised; theyexperience greater social pressures (higherlevels of economic deprivation coupled withconstant ideological pressures to consume) thatlead to higher levels of crime. Their behaviouris also more-likely to be watched, defined andpoliced as criminal.

While these related processes go some waytowards explaining crime, they do not excuse it.Crime, for Marxists, is unproductive labour;criminals, like the ruling class, live off theproductive labour of others and Marx saw themas part of the underclass or lumpenproletariat:they placed themselves outside the classstructure by their exploitative behaviour.

However, while the crimes of the powerlesstend to be heavily policed and punished thisisn’t necessarily the case with the crimes of thepowerful. Pearce (2003) argues, mostcorporate crime - from tax evasion toenvironmental destruction - is barely policedand rarely prosecuted. In addition, corporatelaws are:

D6. Critical Theory

1Shortcutstv.com

2

Sociology Crime and Deviance

Shortcutstv.com

▪ weakly framed - it’s difficult for controlagencies to convict offenders because highlevels of proof are required or the law is framedto allow for a strong defence.

▪ weakly enforced - very few people arearrested and fewer still convicted.

Slapper (2007), for example, notes “Globally,more people are killed each year at work thanare killed in wars. In the UK, over 40,000people were killed in commercially-relatedcircumstances between 1966 and 2006".The majority of these deaths are prosecutedunder health and safety legislation, wherepenalties are more lenient, rather than thecriminal law.

EvaluationMarxism gives us little or no explanation aboutwhy people commit crime, although Hirst (1975)argues this is less a criticism than anobservation; Marxism, is neither interested innor methodologically equipped for such as task.What Marxism does is highlight the nature oflegal and policing practices in capitalist society;social controls are applied more consistentlyand punitively on the working class.

In the 1960s Marxism experienced a culturalturn through the work of writers such asMarcuse (1964) who argued the revolutionarypotential of the working class had beencompromised by their integration into capitalistconsumer society. Marcuse's argument thatrevolutionary potential in advanced capitalistsocieties was to be found in those who had notbeen well-integrated - ethnic minorities, various"outsider groups" (such as radical students andmarginalised youth) - led to resistance as a keytheme in Marxism, explored in terms of criticalsubcultures and critical criminology.

Critical subculturesMarxist subcultural theories are critical oftraditional Marxist approaches in the sensetheir focus is on youth and cultural resistance tocapitalism. Crime is considered as anexpression of resistance around two ideas:

1. Hegemony, considered in terms of how aruling class exercises its leadership throughcultural values.2. Relative autonomy. While individuals havethe freedom to make decisions, choice isrestricted or enhanced by structural factors,such as wealth and power. Although mostpeople choose conforming behaviour (they’re‘locked in’ to capitalist society through familyand work responsibilities), others, especiallyyoung, working-class males, who have fewercultural ties and "less to lose", resist ‘rulingclass / bourgeois hegemony’.

Youth subcultures interest Marxists becausethey show how groups can oppose bourgeoishegemony through the development of culturalstyles of dress and behaviour as ‘alternatives tocapitalist forms of control and domination’ (aswith the ‘counter-culture’ lifestyles ofenvironmentalists, or the recent (2012)"Occupy" movements around the globe). Forsome this opposition takes place on a symboliclevel while others argue it represents a realsolution to the social and economic problemsfaced by young working class males that ariseout of bourgeois hegemony.

1. Real solutions approachThis approach is characterised by the Centrefor Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) andthe argument working-class subculturesdevelop as a response and resistance to socialchange. An example here is how subculturesarise as a reaction to changes in social space:

▪ Literal space refers to the ‘loss of community’thesis advanced by Phil Cohen (1972), whereurban clearance created a violent subculturalreaction among young, working-class males(”Mods”) displaced by community changes.

▪ Symbolic space: Cohen explains theemergence of skinhead subcultures in terms oftheir violent response to their sense of loss of atraditional “British’ identity”.

3

Sociology Crime and Deviance

Shortcutstv.com

Subcultural behaviour, therefore, involvesa collective attempt to both deal with asense of loss and to reclaim social andphysical spaces.

Hall et al. (1978), for example, linksubcultural theory to structural tension andupheaval by suggesting increases indeviant behaviour occur during periodic‘crises in capitalism’ (high levels ofpoverty, unemployment and social unrest,for example). Studies of white, working-class education by Willis (1977) andCorrigan (1979) transfer the focus of ‘classstruggle’ into the classroom and Young(2001) notes how subcultural developmentamong lower-stream, lower-class ‘lads’ inWillis' study was an attempt to ‘solve theproblem of their educational failure’ by ‘playingup in the classroom, rejecting the teacher’sdiscipline’ and giving ‘high status to manlinessand physical toughness’.

2. Symbolic solutions approachOther Marxist theories shift the emphasisfurther into the cultural realm by focusing onhow subcultures represent symbolic forms ofresistance to bourgeois hegemony.

Both Hall and Jefferson (1976) and Hebdidge(1979) characterised youth subcultures asritualistic or ‘magical’ attempts at resistance byconsciously adopting behaviour and styles (theskinhead ‘uniform’ of bovver boots and bracesthat ape ‘respectable’, working-class workclothing, Punks wearing swastikas and so forth)that appeared threatening to the ‘middle classestablishment’, thereby giving the powerless afeeling of power. This is symbolic behaviourbecause it doesn’t address or resolve theproblems that bring subcultures into existencein the first place.

This idea is developed in the work of Bowlesand Gintis (2002) when they argue there is acorrespondence between school and workplacenorms evidenced through schooling in areaslike the daily need to attend and register andthe right of those in authority to give orders.

If schools are a proving ground in which thehierarchical organisation of the workplace isreflected and reproduced then educationbecomes a test of control and conformity: thosewho conform are allowed into the higher areas

of education (and work) while those who rebelare excluded or develop ways of resisting thisprocess through subcultural groups - eventhough such resistance is largely symbolic anddoomed to failure.

EvaluationIn the 1960s and 1970s a number of"spectacular" youth subcultures (such as mods,skinheads, punks and hippies) developed thathave not been repeated over the past 30 or soyears. If working class youth subcultures aresymptomatic of "resistance to capitalism" itseems difficult to explain their disappearance.

Although concepts like ‘symbolic resistance’explain why youth subcultures persist withoutcreating real social change, Young (2001)argues they lack any real substance orempirical validity - "There is a danger groupsbecome sub-cultural Rorschach blobs ontowhich the theorist projects his or her ownprivate definitions". In other words, Marxistsubcultural theorists "see what they want tosee" when they look at youth subcultures.

Stahl (1999), for example, argues that whileMarxist subcultural theory sets up ‘subculturalgroups’ in opposition to some real or imagined‘outside group or agency’ (the school, media,and so forth), they neglect ‘the role each playsin the sub-culture’s own internal construction’.In other words, subcultures may simply be areflection of how they are seen by suchagencies – as social constructions of themedia, for example; convenient ciphers thatstand for whatever a theorist claims they standfor in order to substantiate their theories.