Session Ten: Feminism in Criminology
Session Ten: Feminism in Criminology
Read the following extract and consider the questions that follow:
Feminism and criminology
There are four identifiable strands to feminist thought, all of which have had a different impact on criminology: liberal feminism, radical feminism, socialist feminism and postmodern feminism. We shall discuss the differential influence of each of these in turn. (NOTE: this extract considers just three “strands”)
Liberal feminism
Liberal feminism, stemming from the work of Wollstonecraft, Taylor and Mill, presumes that it is 'bad' or 'poor' scientific practice which produces the sexist bias in empirical research. In other words, it is a view of the scientific process which presumes that the rules of science and scientific inquiry are in themselves sound; what is at fault is how they are applied. To alleviate this problem liberal feminists align themselves with the view that more women researchers are needed, and that any empirical investigation should include women in the sample.
In some respects it is possible to argue that liberal feminism has had the longest historical impact on the study of criminology. This statement can be defended in a number of ways. First, there have always been women researchers looking at the problems associated with crime. There may not have been very many of them, and the work that they produced may not have been particularly radical, but they were nevertheless present and they were examining the sex differentials associated with crime, especially delinquency (see, for example, Glueck and Glueck, 1950; Wootton, 1959; Cowie et al., 1968). In other words, there is both a history of women researching within criminology and a history of work addressing female offending behaviour.
It is possible to align much of that work with the liberal imperative of ensuring that females feature as a part of any empirical data set a question of good 'scientific' practice. There is a second theme, however, to that work which we might locate as being influenced by liberal feminism a focus on the discriminatory practices of the criminal justice system. This strand reveals itself in different ways.
Arguably the work of Pollak (1950), concerned as it was with understanding the influence that chivalry might play in the underdocumenting of women's criminality, is at the same time a study of discriminatory practice. The presumption that women are discriminated against, either favourably or unfavourably, within the criminal justice system has informed a wealth of criminological research. Research has shown that factors such as type of offence (Hindelang, 1979; Farrington and Morris, 1983), home circumstances (Datesmann and Scarpitti, 1980) and personal demeanour (DeFleur, 1975) are contributory factors to the way in which women are processed by the criminal justice system.
This theme has been explored in ever more detailed and specific circumstances; in magistrate's courts (Eaton, 1986), in prison (Carlen, 1983; Dobash et al., 1986) and in women's experiences as victims of crime (Chambers and Millar, 1983; Edwards, 1989). That these factors simply represent sexist practices, however, is not easy to assert. Some studies suggest that women are treated more leniently by the courts, others suggest a harsher outcome. Such contradictory conclusions point to the complex way in which factors such as age, class, race, marital status and previous criminal record interact with each other. Moreover, Gelsthorpe (1989) found that there were organizational influences which affected the way in which females were dealt with by practitioners which were difficult to attribute to sexist or discriminatory practices alone.
Gelsthorpe (1989) goes on to discuss the key drawbacks to this antidiscriminatory theme within criminological work. First, it assumes that women have been neglected systematically by criminology whereas it might be more accurate to assert that criminological concerns have developed rather more erratically than this. Women were the focus of some early criminological work (as suggested above). Moreover, women are not the only blind spot within criminology. There are others, such as, for example, race. Second, the focus on sexism presumes that if criminological theory and / or practices were emptied of sexism, then the theories and the practices would in themselves prove to be sound. This presumption, of course, returns us to one of the key problematics of liberal feminism; the fact that it leaves unchallenged what the yardsticks against which our understandings are measured. Third, much of this work assumes that sexism applies only to women. Gelsthorpe argues that this is an 'untenable' assumption; what about men? Finally, the complexity of the findings in this area do make it difficult to assert which outcomes are a result of direct discrimination.
Some writers have argued that the pursuit of this discriminatory theme, with its underpinning assumption of equality before the law is no longer a fruitful enterprise for feminists interested in the crime problem (Smart, 1990). What is clear, however, is that the work informed by these themes has yielded a wealth of information concerning the complex way in which factors interact to produce different outcomes for different female offenders and victims of crime. Indeed, it is the sheer weight of that evidence which renders a simplistic assertion of chivalry highly problematic and points to understanding women's experiences of the criminal justice system by reference to factors outside the operation of the criminal justice system.
Radical feminism
Understanding the ways in which such processes result in differential outcomes for victims of crime leads to a consideration of the value and impact of radical feminism on criminological concerns. In contrast to liberal feminism, radical feminism focuses more clearly on men's oppression of women rather than on other social conditions which might result in women's subordination. Crucial to the radical feminist analysis is the question of sexuality. The emphasis within radical feminism on women's oppression and control through their sexuality has had its greatest impact on criminology through the avenue of 'victim studies'. It must be said, however, that radical feminists display a far greater preference for the term 'survivor' rather than 'victim', since that term implies a more positive and active role for women in their routine daily lives. These contentions over terminology, notwithstanding the work of radical feminists on rape (including marital rape and date rape), domestic violence, child abuse and sexual murder, have certainly constituted a challenge to criminology in what is defined as criminal, the extent of that criminality and its location. (See, for example, Stanko, 1985; Cameron and Fraser, 1987; Russell, 1990.)
Understanding and embracing the 'safe haven' of the home as a place in which much criminal behaviour occurs, and is perpetrated by men towards women, is still a difficulty for some mainstream (malestream) criminological work, since taking this seriously means taking gender seriously. The campaigning voice of radical feminism which shouts 'all men are potential rapists' reflects both the power and the threat of feminist studies to a criminology informed in this way. There are difficulties, however, with accepting this stance uncritically.
Radical feminism presumes that all men have the same power and control over their own lives as they have over women. Moreover, the view that 'All men are potential rapists' presumes that all men have the same relationship with violence and to the expression of their masculinity in violence towards women. This presumption is derived from the problem of essentialism of which radical feminism is frequently accused. Essentialism asserts the view that there are immutable differences between men and women shared by all men and all women. Moreover, while radical feminism, despite this problem, has centred on men's sexual oppression of women as a key criminological concern, sex is not the only variable about which criminology had had a blind spot. The complex ways in which variables such as sex, race or class might interact with one another has been the central concern of socialist feminism. Here some attention will be paid to the work of Messerschmidt (1986) as articulating one expression of this position.
Socialist feminism
Messerschmidt has this to say about his theoretical framework for understanding crime:
My socialist feminist understanding of crime had two premises. First, to comprehend criminality (of both the powerless and the powerful) we must consider simultaneously patriarchy and capitalism and their effects on human behaviour. Second from a social feminist perspective, power (in terms of gender and class) is central for understanding serious forms of criminality. It was theorised that the powerful (in both the gender and class spheres) do the most criminal damage to society. Further, the interaction of gender and class creates positions of power and powerlessness in the gender/class hierarchy, resulting in different types and degrees of criminality and varying opportunities for engaging in them. just as the powerful have more legitimate opportunities, they also have more illegitimate opportunities. (Messerschmidt, 1993: 56)
As Messerschmidt himself admits, as with all theoretical constructions, this framework has its limitations. For example, it denudes the criminal actor of a sense of agency, locating the motivation for crime within the social system. It also asserts patriarchy as being unitary and uniform in its impact on both men and women. Yet despite these problems this framework does offer a starting point which posits an understanding of criminality located within sociostructural conditions a way of thinking about the criminal behaviour of both men and women and the way in which those sociostructural conditions impact upon men and women. Elements of these concerns are also found in the work of Carlen.
It is important to note that Carlen recognizes the importance of feminism as a politics rather than as a guarantor of theoretical or empirical truth (Carlen, 1990). Moreover, Carlen is very critical of feminist efforts at explaining criminal behaviour and points to two major limitations in such efforts with respect to female lawbreaking behaviour in particular. First, she argues that an exclusive focus on women's lawbreaking behaviour presumes that women break the law for essentially different reasons than men do. This, for Carlen, reflects a reductionist and essentializing position similar to that adopted by the biological positivists. Second, when the historically and socially specific contexts of male and female offending behaviours are examined, the explanatory concepts which emerge rapidly merge with issues of racism, classism and imperialism rather than gender per se.
She goes on to comment that women in prison represent those whose criminalization has been overdetermined by the threefold effects of racism, sexism and classism, none of which is reducible to the other and all of which, for Carlen, point to connecting the debate around women and crime to the broader issue of social justice.
What is particularly striking about both the theoretical work of Messerschmidt (1986) and the range of work conducted by Carlen, on female offenders and women in prison, is the way in which both these writers have drawn on conceptual formulations which take us outside of mainstream criminological debates in order to understand the nature of criminality. This process of moving to debates outside of criminology in order to understand women's and men's experiences of the criminal justice system is one of the features of what Cain (1990b: 2) has called 'transgressive criminology'.
Cain's 'transgressive criminology' constitutes a call to move beyond what she defines as the 'binding web of coman sense' (Cain, 1990b: 8). In order to do this criminology must take seriously that which actors themselves take seriously yet simultaneously make visible that which is taken for granted. This concern generates a criminological shopping list of women only studies, that is studies exploring the totality of women's lives, as well as studies of men. As Cain (1990b: 12) states, criminology must take on board the question of 'what in the social construction of maleness is so profoundly criminogenic: why do males so disproportionately turn out to be criminals?'
There are clearly some parallels between the work of Carlen and Cam and the respective questions they raise for criminology. While Carlen would not concur with any particular claims to a feminist methodology and would eschew the term 'feminist' for all but campaigning purposes (in contrast to elements of Cain's work), their joint focus on locating gender issues as being just one dynamic of both women's and men's experiences of the criminal justice system and their concern to place those experiences within a broader social context outside of criminology, gives some flavour as to why each of them in different ways find the label 'feminist criminology' disturbing. Moreover, each in their different ways have also found it important to challenge any approach which endeavours to essentialize the differences between males and females, as found in radical feminism.
1. Each of the three strands of feminist thought that Sandra Walklate identifies is in some sense critical of “malestream” criminology.
a. What aspects of crime and deviance do each strand focus on?
b. What do the different feminists identify as the main problems with existing criminology?
c. What do they propose as the way(s) in which feminism can effectively influence criminology?
2. What do you see are the strengths and limitations of each approach?
Suggested Additional Readings
Muncie, J, McLaughlin, E and Langan, M (1996) Criminological Perspectives, London, Sage Publications Ch 3, 16, 41, 42, 43
S. Jones (2006) Criminology, Oxford, OUP, Ch 13
Tierney, T (2006) Criminology: Theory and Context, Harlow, Prentice Hall; Ch 13, 15
Eamonn Carrabine, P. Iganski, M.Lee, K,Plummer, N. South (2004) Criminology: A Sociological Introduction, London, Routledge Ch 5
Burke, R.H. (2001) An Introduction to Criminological Theory, Cullompton, Willan, Ch 10
Jewkes, Y and Letherby, G. (eds) (2002) Criminology: A Reader, London, Sage Ch 6