Orthodoxy and Advocacy in Criminology  

Oleh:

Waddington, P.A.J.

Jenis: Article from Journal - ilmiah internasional
Dalam koleksi: Theoretical Criminology vol. 4 no. 1 (Feb. 2000), page 93–111.
Topik: critical criminology; disorder; flashpoints; inner-city riots; social movements
Fulltext: 93TC41.pdf (283.02KB)

Isi artikel

In his belated riposte to my critique of the 'critical consensus' (P.A.J. Waddington, 1991), David Waddington (1998) seeks to defend the conceptual adequacy and methodological integrity of that position, and especially his own 'flashpoints' model (D. Waddington et al., 1987, 1989). In this reply, I demonstrate that not only is his defence unconvincing, but my original critique can be further developed. Conceptually, the notion of 'precipitating incidents' is inevitably applied ex post facto, but also compresses complex patterns of interaction into a single, arbitrary incident and, furthermore, relies upon an impoverished notion of the crowd. Methodologically, lack of equivocation and hesitancy are no substitute for careful and systematic recording of what occurs. The 'critical consensus' remains not only value-ladened, but advocacy. Moreover, it illustrates a characteristic feature of social movements/moral entrepreneurs: the attempt to 'frame' events so as to cast claimants as 'victims'. Indeed, there seem to be good grounds for regarding the 'critical consensus' as simply part of a wider social movement that received political impetus from the riots of the early 1980s.

Opini Anda

Klik untuk menuliskan opini Anda tentang koleksi ini!

Kembali