Realistic Utopianism and Alternatives to Imprisonment:The ideology of crime and the utopia of harm

Although the harms and inadequacies of the criminal justice and penal systems are well-documented, the contemporary impulse is largely one born in critique.Currently, it seems that as critical scholars, activists, and citizens, we are far better at deconstruction than positive construction of meaningful alternatives.Even where evidence of an impulse toward the latter exists, this is often diluted over time via its translation into routine politics.Whilst, in many ways, understandable (given the contemporary climate of knowledge-production which eschews ‘radical’ reform as hopeless and idealistic and/or inherently dangerous, and where the politics of knowledge production sees an endless tension between political independence and irrelevance on the part of those working in this field), this article explores the question of how, given this climate, we might begin to move beyond critique, towards the development of radical, yet realistic, meaningful alternatives to punitive penal practices.Despite attempts to develop realistic alternatives within criminology and penology, through a burgeoning interest in the concept of utopia as a form of praxis, the central argument put forward here is that responding differently to crime begins by thinking differently about crime.Drawing on Mannheim’s distinction between ideology and utopia, it offers the discourse of social harm as an important means of encouraging us to think differently and respond differently to social problems.It is argued that, so long as we take the criminal justice system as the starting point of our critique and the locus for the construction of alternatives, reforms are destined to reinforce and legitimise the contemporary ‘regime of truth’ and dominant constructions of crime, harm and justice. Therefore, it is only through the adoption of a ‘replacement discourse’ of harm that we can start to build realistic utopias and meaningful alternatives to imprisonment

Queer utopias and queer criminology

Drawing on the concept of utopia to reflect upon the emerging field of queer criminology and José Esteban Muñoz’s account of queer theory as essentially utopian, we draw two conclusions. First, we suggest that queer criminology is currently limited by tinkering at the edges with piecemeal reforms instead of focussing on radical, wholesale changes, and second, that queer theory contains within it the potential for a more holistic reimagining of the social world. In doing so, we question rigid cis/trans binaries and reject accounts of trans/gender that ignore the role of structural harm. We draw on Ernst Bloch’s concepts of ‘abstract’ and ‘concrete’ utopia to suggest that while queer criminology has succeeded in producing largely ‘abstract’ utopias, it struggles in translating these into ‘concrete’ ones. By introducing examples of trans literary utopias as potential transformative cultural forms, however, we consider the potential of queer theory for realising ‘concrete’ utopia through a more radical rethinking of the social world

Beyond 'Criminology vs. Zemiology': Reconciling crime with social harm

Since its emergence at the start of the twenty-first century, zemiology and the field of harm studies more generally, has borne an ambiguous and, at times, seemingly antipathetic relationship with the better-established field of criminology. Whilst the tension between the perspectives is, at times, overstated, attempts to reconcile the perspectives have also proved problematic, such that, at present, it appears that they risk either becoming polarized into mutually antagonistic projects, or harmonized to the point that zemiology is simply co-opted within criminology. Whilst tempting to view this as nothing more than an academic squabble, it is the central argument put forward in this chapter that the current trend towards either polariziaton or harmonization of the criminological and zemiological projects, risks impoverishing both perspectives, both intellectually and, more fundamentally, in terms of their capacity to effect meaningful social change. To this end, this chapter offers a critical reflection of recent attempts to reconcile the social harm perspective with criminology, focussing in particular on Majid Yar’s attempts to do so using the concept of ‘recognition’ derived from critical theory. It is suggested that such attempts, whilst important in the contribution they make to developing a theory of harm, are necessarily flawed by their reliance on an implicit assumption of a shared conception of harm underpinning both the concept of ‘crime’ and ‘social harm’. By contrast, it is the central argument put forward in this chapter that zemiology and criminology are best understood as divergent normative projects which, whilst sharing many of the same goals with regards to the improvement of the criminal justice system and the tackling of social problems, differ primarily in the means by which they seek to achieve these. Therefore, rather than denying this debate through the collapsing of one perspective into the other, or polarizing them into hostiles camps, it is only by recognising the nature of this debate and fostering dialogue between the perspectives that we can achieve our shared goals and effect meaningful change

After Penal Populism: Punishment, Democracy and Utopian Method

In a context of growing concerns about the role of public opinion in informing responses to crime, this essay highlights two opposing strategies for seeking to protect criminal justice policymaking from the excesses of penal populism: insulationism and reinvigorationism. It argues that particular concerns about the relationship of criminal justice policymaking to public opinion reflect a broader climate of knowledge production within contemporary society, such that the contemporary production of criminological knowledge itself forms part of the apparent problem of penal populism. Consequently, the aim of this essay is to suggest that the most effective response to the apparent problem of penal populism lies in a reconsideration and democratization of the relationship between expert knowledge and public policy in contemporary society. Drawing on the example of the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum, it advocates the need for new forms of producing and utilising expert knowledge as a means of creating ‘spaces of hope’ through which more meaningful policy alternatives, and engaged publics, can be imagined and developed, proposing Ruth Levitas’ ‘method of utopia’ as one possible means of doing so

[Book Review] Ian Loader and Richard Sparks, "Public Criminology?" London: Routledge, 2010.

Written during a period of burgeoning interest in normative questions about the public role(s) and function(s) of social scientific research in the 21st century, Public Criminology? by Ian Loader and Richard Sparks presents a welcome contribution to contemporary debates concerning the possible and desirable interactions between academic knowledge and public engagement (including discussions of what is entailed by the latter term in the first place), focusing specifically on the production, consumption of criminological knowledge in a contemporary context

Cultural Harm: ‘trans fraud’, ‘gender deception’ and zero-sum games

In recent years zemiology has emerged to pose key questions about the ways in which social harm emerges from non-criminalised deleterious acts, from criminalisation processes and from the everyday workings of our socioeconomic systems. This article both explores and contributes to the zemiological perspective by focusing specifically on developing the notion of cultural harm, as one aspect of social harm. Utilising the examples of (i) the Gender Recognition Act 2004, (ii) a case of ‘trans fraud’ and imprisonment, (iii) and three legal cases involving ‘gender deception’, it explores the limitations of zero-sum approaches to recognising harm. In doing so, the article develops a typology of cultural harm that enables us to move beyond current conflicting claims to harm and begin to identify alternatives that better recognise and address all forms of harm, including those imposed by the hegemonic cis-hetero-patriarchal structures

Crime, Harm and Justice: The Utopia of Harm and Realising Justice in a ‘Good Society’

The effectiveness of criminal justice systems for realising justice either in theory or practice, as well as their role in perpetuating and legitimating injustice have long been questioned by critical scholars. These concerns have also animated the search for alternative approaches to imagining and realising justice. This chapter explores the role of criminal justice systems in producing a particular and limited notion of justice, derived from the standpoint of white, socially and economically powerful males living in the western liberal democracies of the Global North, which, in practice, serve to embody and legitimise injustice. It explores approaches that have sought to either reform criminal justice or abolish it, but argues that both tactics often fail to tackle the problems inherent within criminal justice and, at worst, legitimise them. Instead, drawing on utopian theory, this chapter explores the potential of the social harm perspective for transcending the status quo and reimagining justice

Finding hope in hopeless times

There has been a retreat from hope to desire in utopian theorising in late modernity, aided by a contemporary climate which encourages the separation of fact from value in social enquiry. Fears of authoritarianism associated with holistic visions of the good society have given way to piecemeal approaches to social reform at the expense of more radical transformation, while utopia has shifted from being viewed as a goal to an open-ended process. Drawing extensively on the work of Ruth Levitas, particularly that of utopia as method, I argue for the development of this method as a means of translating abstract expressions of desire into concrete articulations of hope. This is done by tracing the historical development of utopia since the nineteenth century within social enquiry, situating the emergence of utopia as method as a response to problems within the contemporary production of knowledge. I then apply this in the context of criminal justice policy as a particularly illuminating example, to demonstrate both how the current approach to producing knowledge serves to marginalise more radical responses to social problems and the potential of the utopian method for transcending these issues