Home » 2024 (Page 6)
Yearly Archives: 2024
Feminism, Security and Conflict
Content warning: this blog post mentions feminist theory in relation to issues of rape, genocide and war.
Recently I had the opportunity to do a deep dive into feminist contributions to the field of international relations, a discipline which of course has many parallels and connections to criminology. Feminism as a broad concept often is viewed from a human rights perspective, which makes sense as this is probably the area that is most visible to most people through progressions in the field of political participation, reproductive and sexual rights and working rights. A lesser known contribution is feminist theory to international relations (IR), specifically, its practical and theoretical contribution to security and conflict. This blog post will give a whistle stop tour through the exploration I conducted concerning the themes of security, conflict and feminism. Hopefully I can write this in a way everyone finds interesting as it’s a fairly heavy topic at times!
Security
Within IR, security has usually been defined on a more state-centric level. If a state can defend itself and its sovereign borders and has adequate (or more than adequate) military power, it is seen to be in a condition of security according to realist theory (think Hobbes and Machiavelli). Realism has taken centre stage in IR, suggesting that the state is the most important unit of analysis therefore meaning security has generally taken a state-centric definition.
Feminism has offered a radical rejuvenation of not only security studies, but also the ontological principles of IR itself. While the state is preoccupied with providing military security, often pooling resources towards this sector during times of international fragility, welfare sectors are usually plunged into a state of underfunding- even more so than they usually are. This means that individuals who depend on such sectors are often left in a state of financial and/or social insecurity. Feminism focuses on this issue, suggesting women are often the recipients of various welfare based services. The impact of wartime fiscal policy would not have been uncovered without feminism paying attention to the women typically side-lined and ignored in international politics. So while the state is experiencing a sense of security, its citizens (quite often women) are in a feeling of insecurity.
This individualisation of security also challenges the merit of using such a narrow, state-centric definition of security, ultimately questioning the validity of the dominant, state-focused theory of realism which in IR, is pretty ground-breaking.
Conflict
I’d say that in nearly all social science disciplines, including politics, economics, sociology, IR and criminology, conflict and war is something that is conceptualised as inherently ‘masculine’. Feminist theory was one of the first schools to document this and problematise it through scholarship which interrogated hegemonic masculinity, ‘masculine’ institutions and the manifestations of these things in war zones.
Wartime/ genocidal rape is unfortunately not a rare behaviour to come across in the global arena. The aftermath of the Yugoslav wars and the Rwandan genocide is probably some of the most reported cases in academic literature, and this is thanks to feminist theory shining a light on the phenomena. Feminism articulates wartime/ genocidal rape as constitutive of the dangerous aspects of culturally imbedded conceptions of masculinity being underscored by power and domination and being legitimised by the institutions which champion dangerous elements of masculinity.
Practically, this new perspective provided by feminism has altered the way sexual violence is viewed by the mainstream; once a firmly domestic problem, sexual violence has been brought into foreign policy and recognised as a tactic of war. This articulation by feminist theory is absolutely ground breaking in the social science world as it shifts the onto-epistemological focus that other more conventional schools have been unable to look past.
Share this:
‘A de-construction of the term ‘Cost of Living Crisis’ in recognition of globalism’
The term ‘Cost of Living Crisis’ gets thrown around a lot within everyday discussion, often with little reference to what it means to live under a Cost-of-Living Crisis and how such a crisis is constituted and compares with crises globally. In this blog, I will unpack these questions.
The 2008 Global Financial Crash served as a moment of rupture caused and exacerbated by a series of mini events that unfolded on the world stage…. This partly led to the rise in an annual deficit impacting national growth and debt recovery. Then we entered 2010 when the Coalition Government led by David Cameron and Nick Clegg in the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties implemented a Big Society Agenda, underpinned by an anti-statist ideology and Austerity politics. The legacies of austerity have extensively been highlighted in my own research as communities faced severed cutbacks to social infrastructure and resources, many of whom utilised these resources as a lifeline. Moving forward to the present day in 2024, austerity continues to be alive and well and the national debt has continued to rise…. Events including the Corona Virus Pandemic that started in 2019, Brexit and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have amongst other events served as precipitators to an already existing economic downturn. The rise of interest rates and inflation have been partly led by disruptions to global supply chains, particularly essential and often taken for granted food resources such as wheat and grains. So too has political instability hindering opportunities to invest and grow the local economy contributed towards this economic downturn.
As inflation and interest rates rose, so too did the average cost of living in terms of expenditure and disposable income for both the Working and Middle-Classes. At this point, one can begin to see the emergence of the cost-of-living crisis as being constituted as an issue affecting social class.
The cost-of-living crisis is inherently a term deployed by the Middle Classes as some faced an increase of interest rates on their mortgages in addition to rising costs in the supermarkets. These are valid concerns and the reality and hardship produced under these conditions is not being contested. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that economic downturn and the reality of poverty is nothing new for many working-class communities, who have suffered from disinvestment and austerity, long before the term Cost of Living Crisis came into being.
Equally, we can understand the Cost-of-Living Crisis as being a construction led by Western states, as part of a wider Global North. The separation between the Global North and Global South is bound by geography, but economic growth and its globally recognised position as an emerged or emerging economy. Note that such constructions within themselves are applied by the Global North. Similarly, the Cost-of-Living Crisis is nothing new for these states. The reality of living below a breadline is faced by many of these countries in the Global South and should be understood as a wider systemic and global issue that members of the International Community have a moral obligation to address.
So, when applying terms such as the Cost-of-Living Crisis under every-day discussion, it is necessary to contemplate the historicisms behind such an experience and how life under poverty and hardship is experienced globally and indeed across our own communities. This will enable us to think more critically about this term Cost of Living Crisis, which as it is widely used, faces threat of oversight as to the prevalence and effects of global and local inequalities.
Share this:
Ain’t Nobody Never Muted No Gadget BEFORE No Class!
The cyber-lure and lull in class.
The solutions are simple, though the problem is grand and manifests in many micro ways; it’s so common that it’s difficult to see. Digital distraction looms over classrooms like a heavy fog.
You see them ensnared by invisible threads, blocking hallways and doorways, halted as they stand, transfixed and feverishly glued to their phones. Many arrive with restless fingers tapping away on these small screens. Others make a beeline for the nearest socket upon entering the classroom, clutching chargers and cables like lifelines. Some arrive engrossed in video calls – often on speakers – their faces illuminated by the glow of their screens. Still, others refuse to dislodge and stash their earbuds; perhaps they are simply unaware or incapable? Few arrive untethered from the grasp of cyberspace, their connection to reality tenuous at best. Throughout the session, the anxious behaviours rarely subside, as I witness them struggling to break free from the digital embrace clearly holding them captive.
Upon arrival, most students sit and place their phone right on the desk in front of them, ready to escape into cyberspace at a moment’s notice. Then, come the laptops and tablets. Most have two gadgets or more – including smartwatches – anything to shield them from being here, and anchor them there in cyberspace. A larger part of the educator’s role now is to reach: S T R E T C H into cyberspace and teach students how to anchor themselves here IRL.
Ain’t nobody never muted no gadget BEFORE no class!
Arriving in class, they are poised and prepped by social media for distraction, and entertainingly so. Through hours of rehearsal, they get to pay attention to whatever they want with a mere swipe. This applies to messaging, social media and news, dating family and group chats, spam emails and university announcements. The F2F classroom environment is competing with all this lure of the cyberworld. In spite of this daily evidence, folks still feel we’re in charge of the focus of our own attention, according to psychologist Prof Sherry Turkle. Worse, all this constant craving and distraction is diminishing our capacity for empathy.
Once distracted, UNESCO reports that “it can take students up to 20 minutes to refocus on what they were learning” according to one study. Subsequent studies have confirmed the attention lull, as have bans on phones in schools. A 2018 study found “More frequent use of digital media may be associated with development of ADHD symptoms.” When students arrive at university classrooms, it’s a blur.
Despite our initial hopes, the pull of the wholistic virtual environment has ultimately pushed away F2F dialogue. What’s more, the passive attention paid to social media creates a deficit in our conversation skills. We easily get caught up in the loop of reporting and responding to ‘what google said.’ In Teaching Critical Thinking, bell hooks says smashingly: “we are living in a culture in which many people lack the basic skills of communication because they spend most of their time being passive consumers of information” (44). Like a group of friends out for a night using google reviews to dictate every step, too often conversation in the classroom is reduced to trading ‘what google said’. Little attention is given to who said what and, why. Or, less so, what one thinks.
A low tech class.
While there are endless Apps, and gadgets to get students involved in learning, the few hours spent in any face-to-face session can be a respite from such hyper-cyber-immersion.
Share this:
By whose standards?
This blog post takes inspiration from the recent work of Jason Warr, titled ‘Whitening Black Men: Narrative Labour and the Scriptural Economics of Risk and Rehabilitation,’ published in September 2023. In this article, Warr sheds light on the experiences of young Black men incarcerated in prisons and their navigation through the criminal justice system’s agencies. He makes a compelling argument that the evaluation and judgment of these young Black individuals are filtered through a lens of “Whiteness,” and an unfair system that perceives Black ideations as somewhat negative.
In his careful analysis, Warr contends that Black men in prisons are expected to conform to rules and norms that he characterises as representing a ‘White space.’ This expectation of adherence to predominantly White cultural standards not only impacts the effectiveness of rehabilitation programmes but also fails to consider the distinct cultural nuances of Blackness. With eloquence, Warr (2023, p. 1094) reminds us that ‘there is an inherent ‘whiteness’ in behavioural expectations interwoven with conceptions of rehabilitation built into ‘treatment programmes’ delivered in prisons in the West’.
Of course, the expectation of adhering to predominantly White cultural norms transcends the prison system and permeates numerous other societal institutions. I recall a former colleague who conducted doctoral research in social care, asserting that Black parents are often expected to raise and discipline their children through a ‘White’ lens that fails to resonate with their lived experiences. Similarly, in the realm of music, prior to the mainstream acceptance of hip-hop, Black rappers frequently voiced their struggles for recognition and validation within the industry due similar reasons. This phenomenon extends to award ceremonies for Black actors and entertainers as well. In fact, the enduring attainment gap among Black students is a manifestation of this issue, where some students find themselves unfairly judged for not innately meeting standards set by a select few individuals. Consequently, the significant contributions of Black communities across various domains – including fashion, science and technology, workplaces, education, arts, etc – are sometimes dismissed as substandard or lacking in quality.
The standards I’m questioning in this blog are not solely those shaped by a ‘White’ cultural lens but also those determined by small groups within society. Across various spheres of life, whether in broader society or professional settings, we frequently encounter phrases like “industry best practices,” “societal norms,” or “professional standards” used to dictate how things should be done.
However, it’s crucial to pause and ask:
By whose standards are these determined?
And are they truly representative of the most inclusive and equitable practices?
This is not to say we should discard all concepts of cultural traditions or ‘best practices’. But we need to critically examine the forces that establish standards that we are sometimes forced to follow. Not only do we need to examine them, we must also be willing to evolve them when necessary to be more equitable and inclusive of our full societal diversity.
Minority groups (by minority groups here, I include minorities in race, class, and gender) face unreasonably high barriers to success and recognition – where standards are determined only by a small group – inevitably representing their own identity, beliefs and values.
So in my opinion, rather than defaulting to de facto norms and standards set by a privileged few, we should proactively construct standards that blend the best wisdom from all groups and uplift underrepresented voices – and I mean standards that truly work for everyone.
References
Warr, J. (2023). Whitening Black Men: Narrative Labour and the Scriptural Economics of Risk and Rehabilitation, The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 63, Issue 5, Pages 1091–1107, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azac066
Share this:
Gen Z’s gender divide
How can we help bridge Gen Z’s global gender divide as they negotiate for their futures? Unique to Gen Z, according to a recent study, women and men aged 16 to 29 diverge greatly on how they perceive existing inequality as well as assess their futures. That’s according to a widely-reported King’s College study, ‘Emerging tensions? How younger generations are dividing on masculinity and gender equality’, which also found:
- Men are around twice as likely as women to say doing housework and caring for family members are things that apply to both genders equally, despite evidence showing that in reality women do more of both on average. (See also: the Mental Load)
- A higher proportion of men also think there is no gender difference in likelihood of being a senior manager or earning a high income, yet research suggests these characteristics apply to men more than women in the UK. (See also: the UK government’s Gender Pay Gap index, and the Economist)
Family and parental leave – is just one way home and work lives overlap in policy, practice and legislation, acknowledging the importance of unpaid (domestic) labour. BBC news reports on one study that found, “men who take paternity leave do more childcare later.” How might these ‘emerging tensions’ impact the gender inequality in parental leave laws, policies, and practices?
One trend is for companies to create equal and pro-social family policies far beyond laws, not least of which is hybrid working. Flexible/hybrid work has been a lobbying target long before Covid by the Fawcett Society, which champions the Equal Pay Day campaign, and consults the government on the Gender Pay Gap. In 2023 their data highlighted that: “77% of women agreed that they would be more likely to apply for a job that advertises flexible working options.”
Other parental leave policies are gender-neutral, include IVF, adoptive and LGBTQAI+ parents, incentivise paternity leave, and host gendered employee networks. How else will these ‘emerging tensions’ show up in the workplace? One wonders how are other policies and practices promoting a fairer workplace and a healthier work/life balance?
It’s hard out here for…
Notably, all sorts of business news outlets have been reporting about this issue, and more recently about King’s College study, including Forbes, which found it curious that: “for those aged between 16 and 29…some 68% of women said that it was harder to be a woman, while only 35% of men agreed with that statement.” This article shines light on a gap and leaves it at that.
The Guardian has produced a series of articles and podcasts about the growing number of studies and polls reflecting this same cross-gender cultural rift: Here are a few headlines from just this past February:
1/2/24: Gen Z boys and men more likely than baby boomers to believe feminism harmful, says poll.
2/2/24: Friday briefing: Why the politics of young men and women are drifting further and further apart.
7/2/24: Why is generation Z so divided on gender? [Podcast]
Reporting on the study, The Independent headlines: “Of course Gen Z boys believe feminism is harmful – they’ve learnt it from the internet.” Indeed, the author reminds us that social media is quite apt at seeding and feeding division. “Algorithms often operate on extremes: because people tend to click on and engage with the most sensational, hyperbolic content, this is what the algorithm serves up.” Subsequently, young men and women grew up in two very different virtual worlds.
Feminism, the new F-word
According to the King’s College study: 42% of the public say, “equal rights … have had a positive impact on today’s young men.” This is acknowledged in the 2019 Government Equalities Office report, Changing Gender Norms: Engaging with Men and Boys, regarding the Advertising Standards Authority’s guidance on toxic masculine images, stating: “stereotypes implying that men should be physically strong, unemotional and family breadwinners are limiting and potentially damaging.”
Ironically, my career began in international development, which has long since addressed the role of boys and men in gender equality and masculinities, especially through the lens of sexual and reproductive health. In parallel, the work to decriminalise LGBTQAI+ communities simultaneously made alternative masculinities more visible to the wider society which lead even more to question, well frankly, patriarchy.
Still, in America, the majority, “whether they identify as feminists or not – say it is very important for women to have equal rights with men.” Could this be cognitive dissonance?
As these changes grow in wider society, we see organisations responding externally, e.g. virtue-signalling, diversity training, and rainbow advertising. How will organizations shift internally, e.g. in recruitment, retention, leadership, and reward?
Share this:
Justice or Just Another One?
Luckily I’ve never been one for romantic movies. I always preferred a horror movie. I just didn’t know that my love life would become the worst horror movie I could ever encounter. I was only 18 when I met the monster who presented as a half decent human being. I didn’t know the world very well at that point and he made sure that he became my world. The control and coercion, at the time, seemed like romantic gestures. It’s only with hind sight that I can look back and realise every “kind” and “loving” gesture came from a menacing place of control and selfishness. I was fully under his spell. But anyway, I won’t get into every detail ever. I guess I just wanted to preface this with the fact that abuse doesn’t just start with abuse. It starts with manipulation that is often disguised as love and romance in a twisted way.
This man went on to break me down into a shell of myself before the physical abuse started. Even then, him getting that angry was somehow always my fault. I caused that reaction in his sick, twisted mind and I started to believe it was my fault too. The final incident took place and the last thing I can clearly recall is hearing how he was going to cave my head in before I felt this horrendous pressure on my neck with his other hand keeping me from making any noise that would expose him.
By chance, I managed to get free and RUN to my family. Immediately took photos of my injuries too because even in my state, I know how the Criminal Justice System would not be on my side without evidence they deemed suitable.
Anyway, my case ended up going to trial. Further trauma. Great. I had to relive the entire relationship by having every part of my character questioned on the stand like I was the criminal in this instance. I even got told by his defence that I had “Histrionic Personality Disorder”. Something I have never been diagnosed with, or even been assessed for. Just another way the CJS likes to pathologise women’s trauma. Worst of all, turns out ‘Doctor Defence’ ended up dropping my abuser as he was professionally embarrassed when he realised he knew my mother who was also a witness. Wonderful. This meant I got to go through the process of being criminalised, questioned, diagnosed with disorders I hadn’t heard of at the time, hear the messages, see the photos ALL over again.
Although “justice” prevailed in as much as he was found guilty. All for the sake of a suspended sentence. Perfect. The man who made me feel like he was my world then also tried to end my life was still going to be free enough to see me. The law wasn’t enough to stop him from harming me, why would it be enough to stop him now?
Fortunately for me, it stopped him harming me. However, it did not stop him harming his next victim. For the sake of her, I won’t share any details of her story as it is not mine to share. Yet, this man is now behind bars for a pretty short period of time as he has once again harmed a woman. Evidently, I was right. The law was not enough to stop him. Which leads me to the point of this post, at what stage does the CJS actually start to take women’s pleas to feel safe seriously? Does this man have to go as far to take away a woman’s life entirely before someone finally deems him as dangerous? Why was my harm not enough? Would the CJS have suddenly seen me as a victim, rather than making me feel like a criminal in court, if I was eternally silenced? Why do women have to keep dying at the hands of men because the CJS protects domestic abusers?”
Share this:
Headlines and Happiness: Balancing News Consumption and Wellbeing
As part of my reflective diary assessment for my third-year module ‘Critiquing Criminalistics’, I reflected on the importance of being up to date with world events to be able to apply criminological knowledge to them. I also reflected on the fact that I have avoided much of the news and media to manage my despair at the current state of the world. However, in order to further my academic knowledge and its application, I decided I just needed a safe way to keep on top of these things, so I compiled some tips and reminders for myself, and I’d like to share them with you.
Choose wisely: Choose reputable news sources, academic reports or reviews from trusted organisations, some will be better balanced, and much less sensationalised than others.
Practice media literacy: Be critical of the information you find; don’t believe everything you see and hear. Verify news stories from multiple sources before accepting them and remember what the media is designed to do. Plus, social media is full of misinformation and sensationalism and largely speaking, not a good resource!
Need to know basis: Consider which topics are most important for you to stay informed about, and limit exposure to news that is not relevant to your wellbeing or interests. It’s very easy to fall down the rabbit hole!
Limit your consumption: Put some boundaries in place that work for you, whether that’s setting an allotted time frame to catch up like to only listen to the radio on your drive into campus, taking a break from social media, or making sure those notifications are turned off so you’re not ambushed by breaking news.
Managing Traumatic Topics: If you are avoiding any particular topic, it might be helpful to have a trusted person read/watch for you first. Additionally, for any recommended films or series, try finding them on ‘Does the Dog Die?’ https://www.doesthedogdie.com/ to check for triggering content.
Find the happy stuff too: There is so much good happening in the world as well as all the bad, make sure you feed your brain some of that too, whether that’s in the news, or on social media.
Here are some other sources:
Look after yourself: Further to those things, take a break every once in a while, prioritise whatever it is that makes you see your world positively and seek support if you need it, that might be support from a professional, or talk to a trusted person, colleague, or staff member to air out those thoughts – go and ‘talk to a criminologist!’ If you’re particularly prone or you are a chronic catastrophiser (guilty!) – a perspective from someone else can be a useful tool.
Lastly, there is a quote I heard years ago, and while over time, there are some thoughts and applications of it that are less than favourable, I occasionally find it comforting; Fred Rogers passed along a message from his mother who said ‘Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.’
If you are able to manage the discomfort, sometimes it is good to find what makes you feel, and listen to it, let it fire you up! Perhaps you’ll become the helper.
Share this:
The 7 Year Itch
Back in 2017, as a team we started talking of developing a forum where we can write about ideas, which we had run out of time to discuss in class or wanted to raise in addition to what we do. The first of our entries was called “Reflections from a Pilot” and it was all about the prison module we were running. Since then, all colleagues, many students, graduates and esteemed fellows have contributed to our blog, bringing a variety of perspectives and opinions. The bulk of the reflections are mostly focused on the discipline of Criminology but there are several others that explore wider educational issues, social situations, and cultural commentary. This alone demonstrates the variety and extent that our discipline can go into inspiring people who have been given the criminological gaze.
700 blog posts later and we are still going strong. As a team we have seen, Brexit, the relocation to a new campus, a global pandemic, war in Europe, environmental issues and many more. We have commented on crimes and criminalities, cultural conventions, and wider social issues. Our students and graduates brought in their reflections from the challenges on studying to presenting their own research and criminological interests. One of our esteemed colleagues Dr Steve O’Brien blogged about the Hillsborough disaster drawing the connections between sports, policing, and criminology. An interesting juxtaposition, but not unique when it comes to criminology.
We produced several posts that followed the academic year, from welcome week to exams and graduation, whilst we simultaneously posed questions about content and material that we thought our students and readers outside of our campus will find interesting. Our objective was to instigate conversations, to inform and to motivate. We have received emails, comments and we have started conversations based on the topics we introduced. Our blog entries have reflected on the life changes colleagues and students have gone through, with the most notable the pandemic, when we tried to make sense of it and keep our spirits up for the team and the people around us. Teams in academia change, form, reform, group, regroup but regardless of that we continue “to keep calm and carry on”. That is the nature of academia! The continued strive for improvement is one of those traits that are so underrated.
Overall, the initial concept of sharing ideas was surpassed by the variety of use we have for the blog. We have found many different creative ways, including posts from our book club, reflections on movies, whilst we also managing to attract guest authors who provide some excellent insight like our travelling blogger Diepiriye or our social commentator Tré who brought in some cultural paradigms to the blog. The blog became a collective noticeboard of ideas that demonstrated the diversity and reach of the discipline of Criminology. In an ever-changing world we feel proud that we raise the flag for issues regarding social justice, equality, education. We took our personal experiences and expertise and put them in a context for our wider academic community but also for anyone who is interested in what we have to say. We would like to thank all those who took the time to read our blogs. Some of you are avid readers and we thank you; to our contributors past and present for your insight and to the people who shared our stories our gratitude for increasing the extent of our readership. From a few people at the beginning, we have become a blog with a readership of over 10K. We are delighted and we raise our virtual glass to all! 7 years went through so quickly, so here’s for the next 7 years and beyond! -Spoiler alert- Next year the team will be celebrating our Silver Jubilee so keep reading as more interesting blogs are to come!
Share this:
State Crime
A year ago, on this day a terrible accident took place. Two trains collided head on: a passenger and a cargo train. The crash was ferocious, following a massive bright explosion, that was heard for miles. The official count of fatalities are 57 dead and over 100 injured, some of whom very seriously, one of whom at least on a medically-induced coma. The term accident implies something that happened unintentionally and unexpectedly. As the story emerged, different elements came to the surface which indicated that what happened, was not unexpected. The people who worked in the train service raised the alarm months, if not years in advance, sending official statements to the relevant departments and the minister for transport. There were several accidents months before the disaster and there were calls to correct the infrastructure, including the signalling system. Several politically motivated appointments in key positions also meant that the people in the organisation at certain levels lacked the expertise and knowledge to work with the complexities of the railways. The employees’ protests were largely ignored as they never received an official response. So, was it an accident, a disaster, or a crime?
I have left the details, names and even the country of the disaster out, for one reason only. This tragedy can happen in any place at any time and for any kind of people. The aftermath leaves people wondering why it happened and if it was preventable. The pain of those who lost loved ones transcends borders, race, and origin. The question posed earlier remains. Worldwide we have seen similar disasters some of which have permanently marked the local and international community. It is the way we deal with the aftermath that will partially answer the question of what this tragedy was. A disaster goes in deep highlighting questions such as; what do people pay taxes for, what is the role of the State and how important is human life?
People in position of power were warned about it beforehand. There were similar incidents that should have signalled that something wasn’t right. There was underfunding and lack of staffing. All of these may have happened separately, but considered together, they cannot support this being an accidental event. It was a disaster waiting to happen. Then the question is whether this event is a crime or not. Crime is usually seen as a social construction of individual behaviour in conflict with social conventions. This focuses crime onto an action by an individual and therefore the motivations and intent focus on the usual gains, opportunity and other personal rewards. This approach largely ignores an entire section of criminology that deals with harm and social injustices. A crime of this magnitude has individual actors who for their own motivations contributed to the disaster. Nonetheless this is something bigger; it encompasses, services, organisations, departments, and ministries. This is a State crime. Different parts of the State contributed to the disaster and once it happened, they tried to provide a harried response on an individual’s fault…human error.
Years ago, in another place the toxic gases of a plant killed and blinded thousands of people; a nuclear cloud was released in another incident and people were made to evacuate their homes for ever. Some years ago, a fault in a type of plane grounded an entire fleet after a couple of crashes. A terrible earthquake which revealed errors in construction and design. Boats full of people sinking and no one seems to take any notice. A similar picture in most disasters: people looking for their loved ones, feeling powerless in front of a State that took decisions to ignore the risk and the calls of the experts. So, what does this train disaster, the plane crashes, the boat sinkings and the earthquake destruction have in common? They are all State crimes. In modern literature we have learnt to recognise them, identify the commonalities, and explain what a State crime is. What we haven’t done as effectively is to find a way to punish those responsible. Each State, like in this train disaster, recoils into providing all necessary information and changing its mechanisms; maybe because for some countries profit is above people, providing of the main intentions behind State crime. Whilst the State delays, the dead await justice.
In memoriam to the 57 and to the millions of victims of state crimes.
Share this:
Are my interests childish or are you missing the bigger picture?
In semester 2, the level 4 BA Criminology students have been navigating different forms of socialisation for children, and thinking critically about where standards, assumptions and pressures on our children come from. Its been an interesting few weeks full of discussions building on personal experiences, documentaries and the wider academic literature. Now, whilst I could write a detailed reflection on the classroom discussions, what instead I want to, shockingly, moan about in the blog this week are the labels applied to young adults and adults implying being ‘childish’ is something to be ashamed of.
Many who know me will be aware I am a huge Disney fan, particularly Disney and Disney Pixar animations, which includes watching, gaming, clothing and accessories which all match my love for these films. I am also a big, big, big fan of dinosaurs, although if I’m being honest, its more so the Jurassic Park/World franchise. Again, books, films, toys, stuffed dinosaurs (shout out to my Beta stuffed toy – pictured above) from the Natural History Museum) and also a tattoo. These things bring me joy and also peace. Many a times when I’m overwhelmed, the go to is a Disney animation or Jurassic Park (much to my partner’s pain) for familiarity, comfort and relaxation. Yet despite the comfort and joy it brings me, often I am met with commentary about my ‘childish’ interests and questions around ‘when will I grow up’.
Now for clarity, most of these comments (but not all) are from friends and loved-ones who are saying so (I presume) in jest. There is no malice behind the comments, but still it has given me food for thought. Lots of people of all ages share the same joys as myself (social media fan pages are many), but is there any harm in pressing people to justify and commenting on their pastimes? Possibly. I am in a fortunate position to be able to afford various Disney-themed items of clothing (huge shout out to Primark and their Stitch section), Jurassic Park official merchandise, POP! Figures, clothes, posters etc whereas when I was younger, this was not something we could afford. Being in a privileged position and having a disposable income means I get to explore interests from my childhood, and have them develop into passions. Something which wasn’t available to me as a child, or even as a young adult at University. Being older and engaging with interests from childhood also uncovers new ways of appreciating the messages, artwork, and stories.
The presumption that my interests are ‘childish’ is not clearly explained by those who comment. What is meant by ‘childish’ and why is it presumed to be negative is not clear. But there appears to be some stigma around it. There is a push, as we are slowly uncovering in classroom discussions, for everyone to ‘grow-up’, but is this what is best for the individual? Or does this serve some greater purpose for society? I’m not sure what the point of the above ramblings are for, other than it might be best to keep opinions to yourself if you do not share the same interest. In a word that is full of harm and disadvantage, especially for children, let people enjoy their interests and passions, commentary free, if they aren’t harming you!
Thoughts from the criminology team 