Outline the main features of classicism and positivism to the study of crime.

Criminological discourse from its inception has been contentious and prone to

paradoxical viewpoints. Notions of crime and deviance are inherently shaped by

complex social conditioning and terms of reference. Political, religious and social

factors all come to bear on our perceptions of crime. When this reality is bound with

the scientific study of causation the result is many paradoxical schools of thought

pertaining to the same phenomena.

I shall illustrate within this essay the notion that perhaps crime is a much more fluid

concept than rigid sociological, medical or political approaches can master. The

infinite variable factors relating to crime and deviance coupled with society in a

constant metamorphosis negate dogmatic approaches to crime. As Cesare Lombroso

wrote: “Every crime has its origin in a multiplicity of causes” (Lombroso 1911 pg 1) I

shall, however, also illustrate that classicism and positivism also bring jewels of truth

to criminological discourse. The contrasting perspectives are essentially valid but

different tools to work with. The art of a Criminologist therefore is perhaps the art of

selecting the correct paradigm for the situation and negotiating between them. No

single theory can claim a monopoly on truth. “Appreciative relativism” (Einstanter &

Henry 2006 pg: 296) is perhaps a more useful perspective in the study of crime.

Notions of positivism within criminological thought can be seen since society

developed an awareness of deviant behaviour and created the construct that we now

know as “crime”. Judeo, Christian and Islamic explanations of deviance in a religious

context evidence the existence of positivist thought from their first recorded act of

1
deviance: as Eve exclaims in her defence: “the serpent deceived me, and I ate”

[Genesis 3:13]. The tendency to search for external factors for crime and deviance is

evidently an innate one: based on the notion that, essentially, human nature is

benevolent. Clearly the notion that external factors conspire in the commission of

crime is a golden thread amid the fabric of criminology. This is perhaps interesting

when compared to classicisms value structures which could be perceived as socially

constructed rather than innate.

Within the academic study of crime the positivist school of thought can be seen to

emerge from a distinctly medical paradigm. In the twilight years of the 19th Century

the emergence of the Italian school of criminology sparked a departure in thinking on

the study of crime. The schools founding member Cesare Lombroso introduced a

Rosetta stone of sorts into the criminological world in that he contributed to the

introduction of scientific methodology with regard to the study of crime. Lombroso

most notably injected a biological positivism into the study of crime. An “Atavistic

Heredity” (Lombroso 1911 pg 161) in relation to the cause of offending where

physical features were viewed as evidence of an innately criminal nature in a kind of

criminological anthropology.

Whilst Lombroso’s and subsequent Italian school theories are much lampooned for

subsequently being discredited this broad commendation ignores the fact that

Lombroso scientifically established consideration to a wide range of social forces

including education, social class and alcoholism (Lombroso 1911). Whilst his

conclusions can be debated or undermined the fact that an inter-disciplinary pluralism

within criminology was established cannot be disputed.

2
In relation to the study of crime; the positivist notions forwarded by the early pioneers

sparked a departure in the discourse of crime by enabling the study of the subject

devoid of metaphysical dogma so engrained within European society at the time. This

enabled the study of crime to become independent of moral and theological norms

that pervaded the thinking of the day.

With the ascent of studies into psychiatry positivist criminological thought came to

have a bearing in this field also. Sigmund Freud established a defective mind rather

than bodily features in relation to the study of crime in the psychodynamic approach

(Siegel 2005). Hans Eysenck later established a more substantial psychological

positivism with the development of personality theory and the notion of crime as an

imbalance in personality constructs (Einstanter & Henry 2006)

The notion of crime as a psychological / medical condition is an undercurrent within

public policy to this day. This is evidenced through the biosocial / medical paradigms

used to respond to low level deviance within juveniles and specifically with the rise of

pharmaceutical intervention in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Siegel

2005). The wholesale embrace of this approach however ignores underlying social,

cultural and political issues. Difficult and revolutionary social questions can be

bypassed for relatively simplistic solutions. Burning questions with existential

ramifications can be exchanged for mass medication. The notion of criminal as

“other” and defective is therefore reinforced, validating the rest of society. This has

popular appeal and is perhaps why biological determinism and medical approaches

3
have always shaped the study of crime and make a popular bedfellow with policy

makers.

The collective known as the Chicago School however advanced the study of crime as

one might currently recognise it. The positivist influence, this time, stemming from a

sociological viewpoint. Robert Ezra Park and Ernest Burgess’ work essentially

focused on the social disorganisation created by the mass urbanisation prevalent at the

time (Maguire et al 2002). Crucially this collective of academics built on the

sociology of Durkheim and others to widen the scope of criminological study by

exploration of the sociological aspects of crime and deviance.

The inherent danger of positivist thought with regard to crime is clearly a total

acceptance of determinism leading to an amoral landscape in which moral

considerations are devoid. With the erosion of universal truth, underpinned in

positivism, the danger is that universal principles cannot be applied in broad contexts.

Classical criminological thought can be traced to the Enlightenment and intellectual

thought pertaining to the social contract, criminal justice and penology. Cesare

Beccaria’s 1764 publication on crimes and punishments introduced a serious

consideration into the harm caused to society by crime, an ideological outline of the

basis for punishment and the relationship between state and offender (Beccaria 2003).

Jeremy Bentham’s writings on penology and notions of “rational free-willed character

of offenders” (Maguire et al 2002 Pg11) forwarded the study of crime in that the

central concerns of free-will, rational choices and utilitarianism blended to attempt a

4
more logical, and humane, analysis of the problems of crime and suitable

punishments. Crucially Bentham’s notions championed the idea that punishment is

not an end in itself. Bentham’s utopian vision for society added to criminological

discourse a more hopeful and humane outlook.

Classicism’s contributions have profound implications in relation to the study of

crime. If crime essentially exists primarily as a free choice on the part of the offender

then the study of causation within criminological disciplines is thrown into disarray.

This has proved particularly convenient for conservatively inclined governments and

most blatantly is evidenced in the works of theorists such as James Q. Wilson and

Charles Murray (McLaughlin et al 2003). The effect is to present criminal activity as

a matter of personal responsibility and choice made upon a pain/pleasure equation.

The underpinning assumption that pleasure or gain is derived from all crime could be

said to be either a naïve analysis or a populist and politically expedient one owing to

the reduced obligation placed on the state.

The most flawed facet of classical and positivist criminological thought is perhaps

the underlying avoidance of considerations in relation to social power relationships.

Both perspectives essentially are underpinned by moral landscapes in which a

common consensus is shared. The fact that social norms and laws governing criminal

behaviour are created by an elite and mostly directed at lower socio-economic groups

betrays the integrity of the perspective. Crime is therefore ignored as “a question of

political and economic power” (Scraton 2007 Pg 219). On a base level the same moral

precepts cannot be applied to a vagrant stealing food as to a city trader embezzling

5
funds for financial gain. An egalitarian view of crime can only have meaning in an

equal society.

In conclusion it can be seen as evident that both classicism and positivism have their

uses in the study of crime. The absurdity of total positivist determinism is paralleled

by the absurdity of total classical rationalism. It is best, perhaps, to view the

perspectives as complementary rather than paradoxical in the collective

criminological discourse. In an age of sound bites and shortening attention spans the

intricacies of the study of crime must be maintained. Chaque homme à son propre

goût: each man (sic) to his own taste. It is this attitude that continually evolves the

study of crime. Society is constantly in a state of flux and crime is a much more fluid

concept and than any single theory can capture in totality.

6
Bibliography

Beccaria, Cesare (Editor: Richard Bellemy), 2003, On Crimes and Punishments and
other writings (4th Ed). Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Downes, David & Rock, P, 2007, Understanding Deviance (5th Ed). Oxford. Oxford
University Press.

Einstadter, Werner & Stuart Henry, 2006, Criminological Theory: An Analysis of its
underlying assumptions. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

Maguire, Mike (ed) et al, 2002, The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (3rd Ed).
Oxford. Oxford University Press.

McLaughlin, Eugene (ed) et al, 2003, Criminological Perspectives: Essential

Readings (2nd Edition), London. Sage Publications.

Lombroso, Cesare. 1911, Crime: Its Causes and Remedies Translated by Henry P.
Horton New Jersey: Little, Brown and Company.

Scraton, Phil. 2007, Power, conflict and criminalisation. Oxon. Routledge Publishers.

Siegel, Larry 2005, Criminology: The Core (2nd Edition). Wadsworth Publishers.
California

Vold, G. Bernard, T. and Snipes, J. 1998, Theoretical Criminology. Oxford.

Oxford University Press