¿Más allá de la Criminología?

Davant l’evident estancament i impossibilitat (degut al llenguatge, metodologia i punt de vista que adopta) de la criminologia per abordar els fenòmens que més mal generen per la societat, els autors, desprès de debatre i criticar el per què i el com d’aquesta limitació epistemologia, proposen un enfocament per el tractament de dits fenòmens des d’una perspectiva diferent, més amplia, que té com orientació el mal social. L’article proposa i deixa plantejar el debat sobre la conveniència d’utilitzar aquesta perspectiva.Given the apparent stagnation and failure (due to language and methodology employing viewpoint) of criminology to address phenomena that generate more harm to society, the authors, after uncovering and criticizing the why and how of this epistemological limitation, propose an approach to the treatment of these phenomena from a different perspective, broader, whose orientation is social harm. The article proposes and raises the debate about the appropriateness of using this approach.Ante el evidente estancamiento e imposibilidad (debido al lenguaje, metodología y punto de vista que emplea) de la criminología para abordar los fenómenos que más daño generan para la sociedad, los autores, después de develar y criticar el por qué y el cómo de esta limitación epistemológica, proponen un enfoque para el tratamiento de dichos fenómenos desde una perspectiva diferente, más amplia, que tiene como orientación el daño social. El artículo propone y deja planteado el debate acerca de la conveniencia de utilizar esta perspectiva

Criminology or Zemiology? Yes, please! on the refusal of choice between false alternatives

Buried deep within the zemiological movement and its supportive literature is the implicit assumption that the word zemia, the organising concept around which zemiology is built, simply represents ‘the Greek word for harm’. This interpretation has supported numerous drives to ‘move beyond criminology’ and erect strict borders between the study of crime and harm. However, a deeper, albeit still rather brief, exploration of zemia reveals that it possesses a broader range of meaning than that commonly afforded to it. By beginning to unpick zemia’s semantic genealogy, it appears that the conventional use of the word to support the imposition of false alternatives between criminology and zemiology is untenable. Accordingly, this chapter attempts to foreground a more integrated approach to the study of crime and harm

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

From 'crime' to social harm?

[About the book] The essays selected for this volume show how radical and Marxist criminology has established itself as an influential critique since it emerged in the late 1960s. Unlike orthodox criminology which emphasizes individual level explanations of criminal behavior, radical and Marxist criminology emphasizes power inequality and structures, especially those related to class, as key factors in crime, law and justice. This collection of essays draws attention to the way in which structural forces shape and influence both individual and institutional (for example, governmental) behavior; highlights neglected crime (corporate, governmental, state-corporate and environmental) which causes more extensive damage than the street crimes examined by orthodox criminology; and, discusses the ways in which law and criminal justice processes reinforce power structures and contribute to class control

¿Més enllà de la criminologia?

Ante el evidente estancamiento e imposibilidad (debido al lenguaje, metodología y punto de vista que emplea) de la criminología para abordar los fenómenos que más daño generan para la sociedad, los autores, después de develar y criticar el por qué y el cómo de esta limitación epistemológica, proponen un enfoque para el tratamiento de dichos fenómenos desde una perspectiva diferente, más amplia, que tiene como orientación el daño social. El artículo propone y deja planteado el debate acerca de la conveniencia de utilizar esta perspectiva.Given the apparent stagnation and failure (due to its language, methodology and viewpoint) of criminology to address phenomena that generate more harm to society, the authors, after uncovering and criticizing the why and how of this epistemological limitation, propose an approach to the treatment of these phenomena from a different perspective, broader, whose orientation is the social harm. The article proposes and raises the debate about the appropriateness of using this approachAnte el evidente estancamiento e imposibilidad (debido al lenguaje, metodología y punto de vista que emplea) de la criminología para abordar los fenómenos que más daño generan para la sociedad, los autores, después de develar y criticar el por qué y el cómo de esta limitación epistemológica, proponen un enfoque para el tratamiento de dichos fenómenos desde una perspectiva diferente, más amplia, que tiene como orientación el daño social. El artículo propone y deja planteado el debate acerca de la conveniencia de utilizar esta perspectiva

Para além da criminologia? = Beyond criminology?

- Traduzido por: Marina Quezado Soares