Criminology as Other: Observations on the Construction of the Field

Abstract

In 1978 Donald Cressey commented on an emerging division in the study of crime with some scholars concentrating on the development of a "crime fighting coalition" and others concerned with the processes associated with "making laws, breaking laws, and the reaction to the breaking of laws" (1978: 175). Since Cressey's paper, many other have reflected on the distinction between criminology and the sociology of crime and deviance (Akers, 1992; Garland, 1999; Garland & Sparks, 2000; Konty, 2007). But does such a distinction actually exist? Adopting a pragmatic position, the immediate answer is yes, if we assume that these categories have substance on the basis that they are grounded in everyday beliefs, institutional preferences and research practice (Konty, 2007). Moreover, these are viable categories in that some people studying crime label themselves criminologists (or are given this label by others) while others prefer or are given the label sociologist . Of course, there are further labels that may apply to persons studying crime, which include psychologist, penologist, biologist, chemist, and so on. One could argue that these categories have a practical character. For criminology and the sociology of crime in particular, scholarly discourse frames these categories as oppositional (Bader et al., 1996.; Bendle, 1989; Laub & Sampson, 1991; Sibley, 2002) and to the extent that this has occurred, the categories have social relevance.