Home » Criminology
Category Archives: Criminology
Who owns the past?
The question of whether museums remain relevant comes up often in discussions about heritage and old artifacts. Yet the evidence suggests they continue to play a vital role in modern society. People still visit them in huge numbers, and schools rely on them as living classrooms. According to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, museums in the UK welcomed over 40 million visitors in the past year, with attendance peaking in the summer months and during school holidays. Clearly, the appetite for museums hasn’t faded.
Part of their enduring appeal lies in their diversity. There are museums filled with towering dinosaur skeletons, others dedicated to technology from just a decade ago, and countless spaces in between. Among these institutions, some of the oldest — like the British Museum — continue to spark debate and fascination. Its vast collection spans human history, art and culture from across the world. Within its walls you’ll find globally significant artifacts such as the Parthenon Sculptures, the Rosetta Stone, the Ife Head from the Benin Bronzes, and the enigmatic Hoa Hakananai’a from Rapa Nui.
These objects draw millions not only because they are beautiful or ancient, but because they connect us to stories far larger than ourselves. Whether museums should continue to hold such items is an ongoing conversation — but their relevance, at least in the public imagination, remains undeniable. A statue in a museum can provide some understanding about sculpture and carving techniques but in the case of Hoa Hakananai’a it misses the context of its purpose.
The relevance of museums becomes even more pronounced when the objects they display belong to the heritage of other cultures. Calls for repatriation have grown louder in recent decades, often framed as reminders of a colonial past in which powerful nations acquired “beautiful” or culturally significant objects simply because they had the means to do so. For many communities, these artifacts are not just historical items but living symbols of identity, memory and continuity — and their absence is felt as a loss.
Museums often argue that they preserve artifacts and ensure their longevity for future generations. They present themselves as spaces where millions of visitors can immerse themselves in global culture. That is their position, but recent events, such as the Louvre heist, make it harder to accept this claim without question. Even more troubling is the way many of these artifacts were originally removed from their countries of origin. It is difficult to frame these actions as preservation rather than a form of cultural piracy.
The Parthenon Sculptures are a striking example. They were hacked into transportable pieces in the early 19th century to be displayed in what was intended to be the private museum of a Scottish aristocrat. Their removal took place a decade before Greece gained independence through revolution. When that aristocrat later fell into bankruptcy, he sold the sculptures to the British Museum for half his original asking price. This is just one of many transactions that undermine the argument that such acquisitions were motivated by respect for other cultures. Instead, they reveal a pattern of opportunism that continues to shape the debate today.
Therefore, it becomes reasonable to question whether some museums function as relics of a colonial past — institutions that still hold objects taken under unequal power dynamics. Returning artifacts to the communities and regions they originate from is increasingly seen as a step toward cultural justice. Although the Kingdom of Benin no longer exists in its historical form, the Edo people of Nigeria continue to identify with the bronze casts of the Obas (kings) they depict, and they have long called for their return.
The movement for repatriation is gaining international momentum as governments and museum authorities begin to return culturally significant pieces to their rightful communities. If the history and identity of people are the most important parameters, then why insist on keeping the originals in foreign institutions while offering only copies to the cultures that created them?
This leads to a deeper question: who owns the past? How do we curate the history and culture of peoples who endured colonial rule, displacement, or even extermination? Human history may be collective, but the cultural significance of certain artifacts reminds us that we must confront the crimes of the past — the looting, the violence, and the erasure — and recognise the need for justice for those who were wronged.
In the end, the relevance of museums in the twenty‑first century depends on their willingness to confront the legacies that shaped their collections. These institutions can no longer rely solely on their educational value or their role as guardians of global culture; they must also reckon with the histories of extraction, violence and inequality that brought many treasured objects into their halls. Repatriation is not about emptying museums but about rebalancing relationships, restoring dignity and acknowledging that cultural heritage carries meaning far beyond its aesthetic or historical worth. If museums choose to evolve to collaborate, to return what was taken, and to tell fuller, more honest stories they can remain vital spaces for learning and connection. But their future relevance will be measured not by the number of visitors they attract, but by the integrity with which they address the past and the justice they help shape for the generations to come.
Share this:
A head full of AI free magic
It’s been an interesting few weeks discussing ethics and professionalism with my students, well those that turn up, but that’s a different debate, albeit I guess, in a way linked to the essence of this blog. As usual, my head is full of what a former colleague would describe as ‘magic’. Lots of different seemingly daft ideas, formulated into some narrative that makes sense to me but is difficult to convey to the rest of the world. The latter I’m sure is not peculiar to me, it happens to most people when they have to start writing something, some call it writers’ block, I just call it searching for the starting point. The daft ideas though, I proudly claim as my own. And that is why so often I end up writing a load of ‘stuff’ and then deleting it or at least some of it. In writing, I’m aided by some spell checker built into the software that I’m using and suggestions, also built into the software, about grammar and sentence construction. The latter often hinders rather than anything else, ‘no I do not want to revise the sentence to be more succinct. Your succinctness makes no sense to me and does not convey what I want to say’. A bit of a ramble so far I know, but I’m not going to change it because I want to convey the head full of ‘magic’ phenomenon (those of you that can remember it, can now sing the little ditty that will stick in your head for the rest of the day) and the writing process. You no doubt will have noticed, well those of you that still have a pulse and the will to live, I have made no mention of AI. No use of AI to convey my head full of ‘magic’ ideas, no use of AI to help me start writing. Why, well let me put it to you very succinctly, these are my ideas, it’s my head full of ‘magic’. It does not belong to some machine, whatever appears on this screen, whilst I am writing, is mine and mine alone. I cannot imagine a time when I will be so devoid of thought, ideas, creativity or ability, that I will resort to asking a machine to provide me with the answer or the output. What would the answer look like if I did? Some verbose monologue that is boring, has little or no substance, is devoid of meaning and in the case of academic work, if this were such, is supported by pseudo or obscure, tentatively subject linked, or even fictitious, references. Verbal diarrhoea on screen. If you want evidence of this, ask any discerning academic about more recent student essays. I say discerning for good reason, a reason that I hope to make apparent in a short while.
Let me digress just a little. Recently in the news there has been momentum around the use of mobile phones by young people, or more to the point, what some will say is misuse of phones. Or, the more cynical and critical amongst us might say the abuse of young people by multinational tech giants. There to make money, tech companies have used algorithms, heuristics and goodness knows what to ensure young people are hooked on social media. To their credit, they have also invested vast sums of money trying to limit online abuse and harmful content. But let’s be honest, it’s like farting and then running around with some aerosol to try to cover up the smell. It still stinks but the air is a little better in a few places. Society and government are waking up to the harm caused by the use of technology by young people in this context and we have seen some countries introduce an outright ban on use by under 16s. Something being mooted in this country. Some schools have banned the use of phones in the classroom and as a consequence have seen youngsters returning to healthier past times like playing football or chatting, and of course misbehaving. I would suggest that we have been well behind the curve when it comes to realisation of the harm that is being caused to young people. As parents, we have even colluded in it, albeit more often than not, unwittingly. Those in education systems have probably done the same. But this seemed to creep up on society almost organically, fertilised by businesses whose raison d’être is to make money regardless of cost to humanity. Although they have always dressed it up as progress and of benefit to individuals and society at large. The emperor’s new clothes comes to mind.
But what of AI? There seems to be a clamour by government that as a country we need to jump on the AI bandwagon. AI is being foisted upon us, much the same as social media and the internet has been, by tech companies. We are being told the next generation will need to be AI savvy. But what does that mean? Whilst all of this is going on, there is growing research showing that AI is crippling people’s cognitive abilities. That AI will stop us from being able to analyse and be critical ourselves. Technology does this. Think about spelling, no longer do you need to worry about spelling because it is done for you, grammar, pretty much the same. No need to calculate things in your head, you can use a calculator, no need to remember phone numbers, they are all in your mobile phone, no need think up ideas, AI will do that for you, no need to read, AI will summarise it for you, no need, just no need. I am human but I have no need to think for myself.
And yet, armed with this knowledge individuals in educational institutions plough headlong into promoting AI to their students. This can help you find sources, this can help you when you are devoid of ideas, this can help you make your work better, this can help you …. Stop thinking for yourself. I and most of my colleagues are able to think for ourselves because we have grown up having to. I know what I know now, which as an aside is very little, because I have had to think for myself, work things out for myself. Along the way I have been aided by all sorts of people in all walks of life, but I am who I am because I can think for myself. But educational establishments these days concern themselves almost psychopathically with student numbers, finance and results. There seems to be little understanding of what education really means or for that matter, little concern. Institutional reputations are upheld at all costs, individual reputations forged on sycophantic behaviours with little regard to the impact on students or colleagues. Within this, institutions, driven by government and more importantly business rhetoric make AI central to their vision, their mission.
I wonder whether in a few years’ time there will be an inquiry somewhere, that suggests we have deprived a whole generation of the joy of being human. I wonder whether someone will say those individuals and institutions that so frivolously dabbled with AI, using students in a social experiment, were quite simply morally bankrupt in their drive to further their own ends. And at least some of my students know what Immanuel Kant would say about that!
Share this:
That’s not misogyny….it’s just your imagination
Imagine a little boy1 called Jimmy, he could be called, Aaron, Daniel, Joshua, Matthew, Samuel or any other other traditionally male name, but for expediency, we’ll call him Jimmy, short for James. From the moment of birth he becomes somebody’s son, the light of their lives, new beginnings for all. Lots of people comment, how lucky to have a boy, not that there’s anything wrong with girls, but a son is something special, somebody to carry on the family name. Gifts are bestowed, and anyone who has looked for children’s clothes recently, will see that tradition still holds sway, blue for a boy, pink for a girl. And what about toys, no dolls for little boys, unless they’re in military attire, instead, some bricks, some cars, a gun, something sporty, a ball, a bat, to keep their mind and body active. What about some books, we’re told that boys don’t really like those, a message they absorb quite readily, reading is hard to learn and requires patience and perseverance. Nevertheless, we don’t want Jimmy to be illiterate, so let’s find some books about his place in the world, tales of empire, princes and superheroes who save the world. Books that really centre the male experience, where girls and women are secondary characters to assist or be rescued, that’s if they appear at all. Think of all those traditional fairy tales where girls are told again and again to stay on the right path, to do as they’re told, to defer to the male characters. All this while the men are fighting dragons, ogres, travelling the world. But don’t forget he loves his mummy dearly, she understands him, that’s why she reads those stories to him.
All too soon little Jimmy has to leave his mother’s bosom and enter the world of formal education. Mummy tells him “boys don’t cry” whilst all the while worrying what school will do to their little boy who loves animals and cries when watching Bambi. Nevertheless, he is mummy’s “brave little soldier” and he will do his best to toughen up in the classroom, in the playground and on the playing fields. As we are told boys don’t really like girls games, they’re boring and dull, and even if they do, what will the other boys say? A steady drip drip of intolerance, never compromised, in the instruction of young Jimmy. When things go wrong, as they often do in human relationships, Jimmy’s behaviour is excused, he’s young, he’s enthusiastic, he’s exuberant, he’s misunderstood. And after all “boys will be boys”, he’s probably just ended up with the wrong crowd. He’s only playing, he’s only teasing, it’s only banter, nothing serious, nothing to get wound up about. We must be patient, after all boys mature much slower than girls, or so we are told. Give him time, give him space, he’ll grow out of it. But don’t forget he loves his mummy dearly, she understands him, she knows that he’s her “little hero”.
And what happens to the girls whilst they wait for little Jimmy to grow up? They learn too, they learn to take up less space, to stay out of Jimmy’s way, they learn to keep quiet, because nobody’s hearing, although everyone says they’re listening. The girls are whipping things out of all proportion, they don’t understand, they’re gunning for poor Jimmy who is such a delightful little boy , apart from when there’s no adults around. Anyway, Jimmy said sorry, begrudgingly and because he was told to, but it is an apology nonetheless. So there is no need to hold a grudge, let’s go back to where we were before you started your silly complaints to busy adults. Don’t forget nobody likes a girl that whines and nags, everybody benefits when they have a smile on their face and an eagerness to support and nurture, it doesn’t become a young lady to be tiresome and needy. So the powers that be excuse, minimise and ameliorate Jimmy’s behaviours, attitudes and actions. But don’t forget he loves his mummy dearly, she understands him, even if she does go on a bit.
So off Jimmy goes to university, where women predominate undergraduate studies. Here, there is less tolerance, for Jimmy’s behaviours, but there are plenty of others like him. All are focused on the transition from childhood to independent adult. There is more opportunity to live freely, to decide who you want to be, but there are also lots of challenges to your beliefs, your attitudes, your behaviours. Still that freedom, means you can avoid those difficult conversations in classrooms, you can keep your head down, you can focus on a different kind of education, one freely available from like-minded peers, the internet, AI etc. There’s nobody to chase you, to pick up after you, to make sure you’re not staying up too late, or getting in with the wrong crowd, there doesn’t appear to be any consequences. You don’t need to engage with women, their study groups, their friendships, their desire for education as an escape from their own mother’s experiences, Jimmy’s had years of being told what to do, how to think, how to behave, now he gets to decide, he’s in charge of his own destiny and those around him, need to sit up and take notice. But don’t forget he loves his mummy dearly, she understands him, she can empathise with how hard he works, how tough life is for her little Jimmy.
After university, Jimmy’s off to be a professional. A fully formed adult, with a degree under his belt, and a lifetime of reassurance that he’s supported. He didn’t get the degree classification he deserved, too many rules and regulations, too many classes, too many assessments, but that’s not his fault. Everyone knows there is a gender disparity in attainment, so it must be the fault of those academics, who tried to challenge his thinking because they don’t understand the real world. None of that matters now, he has a job, a career, and he’s going to change the world. By now he’s used to being listened to, all the times in headteachers’ offices where his behaviour was deconstructed, analysed and reinterpreted. His mummy, who had no opportunity to go to University, listens to her clever son who tells her how things are in the world. He talks about ideas and people that she’s never heard of, some with some very nasty things to say and she presumes this is what the educated discuss. Little does she know, this does not come from the classroom, but from podcasts, pornography, late night chats whilst playing violent video games, and little Jimmy’s banter with his mates. The problem is the women in his workplace, don’t like his banter, his jokes, his little comments. They’ve been working for a long time, alongside raising their own little Jimmys, and they know what this is. They sense the misogyny all around them, they’ve had a lifetime of feeling, hearing and seeing men like little Jimmy. They talk over them, they talk about them, they take their ideas and their work and they demean and diminish at every opportunity. They exaggerate their knowledge and experience and use ad hominem attacks and whataboutery to great effect. They take it for granted that they have something to say, that people want to listen to them. They sit in meetings and say “what about the men?” yet never, “what about the women?”. Anything to shift attention back to them, centre of attention, supported, enabled and encouraged. But don’t forget he loves his mummy dearly, she understands him, even if she does switch off when he goes off on one of his rants, after all he knows best, he’s her “clever little boy”.
But what about the women in little Jimmy’s workplace? They’ve seen it all before, they’ve read the fairy tales and they know that dragons can be vanquished, but only by men. They laugh and joke about their experiences with other women, but this dark humour, reverberates at night and in quiet moments, and they know they are avoiding confronting the issue. By doing this there is collectivity but they know such humour protects no girl or woman. But professionalism means they cannot tackle the problem head on, they cannot call it out for what it is, there are policies and processes, institutions must have evidence, what happened, when did it happen, who saw it happen, what did you do/say, have you tried an informal approach etc etc. Before the women even begin, they know that they’re at a grave disadvantage, after all little Jimmy is new, he’s ambitious, he’s enthusiastic, he’s exuberant, he’s misunderstood. Let’s see if we can get him some training, some unconscious bias, some cultural competency, some management expertise, the list goes on. But little Jimmy is well versed in avoiding challenge so he goes through the motions, another certificate to remind him of all that he has achieved. The women relearn what they already know from a lifetime’s experience, take up less space, stay out of Jimmy’s way, keep quiet, because nobody’s hearing, although everyone says they’re listening. The women are catastrophising, they don’t understand, they’ve got it in for little Jimmy who is so delightful when talking to management, but far less charming when nobody is around. Anyway, Jimmy declares remorse, begrudgingly, without ever mentioning the words sorry or apology, and only because he was told to, but it is an apology nonetheless. So there is no need to hold a grudge, let’s go back to where we were before you started your tedious complaints, it will make a happier workplace for all. Don’t forget nobody likes a woman that whines and nags, everybody benefits when they have a smile on their face and an eagerness to work hard and pick up the slack, it doesn’t become a lady to be tiresome and needy, so get back to work. Again the powerful excuse, minimise and ameliorate Jimmy’s behaviours, attitudes and actions. But don’t forget he loves his mummy dearly, and he deserves to rise to the top in whatever he does, after all he’s a “born leader” and those women will only waste the opportunity because of their biology.
A lifetime of always getting his way, nobody ever saying NO and actually meaning it, always somebody to make space, make time, make allowances, makes it very difficult to stop Jimmy’s misogynistic proclivities. He certainly would not recognise that misogyny has anything to do with him or his mates, what a Silly Billy. Instead, he carries on oblivious to the misery he leaves in his wake. But don’t forget he loves his mummy dearly, and it’s not his fault women misinterpret his intentions. But what happens when somebody says NO, and means it? In the very best case scenario little Jimmy take this as a learning opportunity, listening and actually hearing the words spoken to him, doing the important on himself. If you want to know about the worse scenario, read the lived experiences encapsulated on the Everyday Sexism Project or Everyone’s Invited from which this blog entry has taken inspiration. You could also ask the women who pick up the pieces, mop up the tears, tend to the broken bodies and minds on a daily basis, by following the work of charities such Northamptonshire Rape Crisis and Eve Domestic Abuse. You could take the time to listen to the girls and women in your lives about their experiences, but proceed with caution, you may not be ready for what you might hear.
The words above are a figment of my imagination, but the content described happens everyday, all around us in plain sight. The story above is not just about Jimmy, but lots of Jimmys, whose misogynistic attitudes and behaviours are facilitated, encouraged and tolerated by all of us. Men, women, institutions, society are complicit in the continuation and perpetuation of misogyny. In the UK and further afield, adults, children and institutions continue to operate within the parameters of the British Empire, enabling attitudes such as misogyny, racism, homophobia, disablism and all of the other miseries to continue unabated. However, much we might want to pretend these attitudes are outdated and the behaviours, simply symptomatic of an overactive imagination, if you open your eyes you will see it all around you. It is not enough to wring our hands whilst watching Adolescence or Eastenders or Louis Theroux: Inside the Manosphere, kidding ourselves this doesn’t happen around us, only to other people. Bear in mind also, that the attention is always focused on the male characters, as always, girls and women are bit players, secondary to the main story, appearing only as victims and survivors and often causal factors in their own victimisation (see Jimmy’s mum above). Programmes such as these, offer the promise of awareness raising, but we swiftly move onto the next offering. We all have a responsibility to call out misogyny, to listen when girls and women try to explain their experiences, and the powerful have a duty to protect all, not just some of our society. If you don’t understand or recognise another’s experiences, don’t dismiss, ask questions, centre that person’s dialogue and then act on it.
- I have deliberately focused on girls and women, at the expense of other intersectionalities such as race, religion, sexuality, age and disability, simply because the problem is just too large for a single blog entry. But you could consider the misery of misogynoir or hijabophobia or many other contexts in which male supremacy continues to have a devastating and generational impact on individual lives. ↩︎
Share this:
Not reading criminology? That’s criminal!
There are two kinds of criminology conversations I get embroiled in these days! Those with people who read criminology where we discuss many social/cultural phenomena under a specific lens or those with people who find criminology interesting, but consume popular crime instead. The first group with varying level of engagement is beginning to decode some tell-tell signs in current events, using their knowledge of the discipline, as a deciphering mechanism. The second group is quite different. Their understanding of crime is based on dramatisations and literary conventions around plots and characters. Even real crime is harbouring under the guise of some “exclusive” journalistic exposé…far from any basic criminological understanding.
Years ago, a colleague from Sociology told me a story regarding a family event. They were completing their PhD in the discipline, and they were questioned by an elderly person, as to what they would do when they finished their thesis. They responded in the usual way many graduate students tend to, about hoping to get into academia or get some funding for some further research. The elderly person didn’t seem satisfied…. they prompted further. What will be your specialism? What will you be able to tell people that you are proficient in? Society and people, the colleague replied! That’s hardly a skill, the old relative replied; we all live in society! The colleague was equally intrigued and offended. They thought that by offering a succinct response it would have helped their relative to understand without being confounded with notions on symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology. This was a little anecdote that resonates with many social scientists, criminologists included, that whilst they try to explore people and culture around them, they are becoming distant to the actual people around them.
The degree of challenge in recent years seems to increase for disciplines where people in general have a vague idea of what it is. Many try to use psychological terms to explain other people’s behaviours, without realty appreciating, the clinical and scientific conditions of the term. That is relevant to criminology too. The representation of crime for public consumption has introduced some of the discipline’s terms into everyday parlance. From forensic terms on profiling, to the origins of criminality, expectations on crime are forged. A criminologist’s reaction to popular criminology pundits tends to be, well not quite, only to be met with disbelief of the criminology they know!
One of the ways to appeal to those interested in popular criminology and take them to the discipline will be to add some facts and figures that promote reality. Perhaps but that has been done before but only to give a gloss of “legitimacy” in fiction. It makes it more compelling, but it doesn’t really offer the depth of knowledge. To understand criminology, one must read criminology. The history is filled with colleagues who brought their imagination to the discipline. From Bonger’s Criminality and Economic Conditions to Jock Young and The Criminological Imagination there are books and papers that are waiting to be read by a new audience to try to figure out these ideas.
Maybe we all live in society and heard about crime and even experienced it, but to understand it we need some criminology. The discipline, as with all social sciences, is a dialogue between people ready to carry forward the next constructs that shall appear as crimes. If we read them and take part in these conversations maybe the area of harsh punishments, exclusion and persecution may not be as appealing. We are an academic discipline but at the same time we open the discussion to our community. So if you are neither a student, graduate, nor fellow academic and you are interested in criminology, why don’t you come to visit? https://www.northampton.ac.uk/about-us/contact-us/open-days/
Share this:
Self-Care: A Criminologist’s Confession
Let me be upfront, I study crime for a living. I am not a wellness guru. I do not own a journal with an inspirational quote on the cover and I have never once made a green smoothie by choice. So if you were expecting expert advice, I apologise. What I do have is a recently sustained injury, a pair of retired running shoes (not the picture above!), and something to say about all of it.
Back in November, I got injured during a light gym sesh. Nothing dramatic, no heroic story involving a marathon finish line or a training montage. My body simply decided it had opinions, and I had to stop running. For someone who uses running to decompress, that was not ideal. Turns out when you take away the one thing that clears your head, your head gets quite crowded.
Now, before I go any further, I need to take a moment to salute my old running shoes, ASICS Gel. It was fire! Two years of loyalty, two years of 6am starts, two years of rain, wind and whatever else the British weather threw at us, two years of bad days turned around, two years of grinding when the motivation was nowhere to be found. Never complained. Never let me down. Absolute workhorse!!. Round of applause for these guys. Rest well.
I did want to include a photo as a tribute. My wife looked at it this morning and said, “nah, that’s ugly, delete it.” So. No photo. The shoes deserved better and apparently so do you.
In their place, there is a new sheriff in town as you can see up there. Fresh out of the box, and performing very well so far. No complaints. High hopes. ASICS, run me my influencer cheque quick!!!!
Getting back into running after time off is humbling. Your lungs have apparently moved on with their lives. Your legs remember nothing. But we are getting there, slowly, steadily, without any illusions of grandeur. Some days are better than others. The weather has not always helped, although getting better.
But then, getting back to it, however slowly, has reminded me how much I had let self-care slide. It is easy to do. Life gets busy, work piles up, and suddenly taking care of yourself feels like one more thing on the to-do list.
So, from one person who is very much a work in progress: take care of yourselves. Whatever that looks like for you. It does not have to be running. It does not have to be anything impressive. It just has to be something.
I’ll be back with an update on how the new ones are getting on. Fingers crossed they have what it takes to fill those shoes. Literally.
Share this:
To be a keeper of these stories. A collector of trust.
I think this will be somewhat of a poem; I guess.
About all the tears I’ve held space for lately.
There has been quite a lot. Is it any surprise?
Big ones, small ones. Happy and sad ones. Not really sure why ones.
‘cept it’s the happy ones I want to share today.
They’ve got me thinking. Reflecting.
A proper headshake, actually.
It’s not the best space for sensitive conversations but it’s what we’ve got. I wait and I wait. Sometimes a flurry. Sometimes not. The enthusiasm is sometimes hard to muster. If I’m really being honest. But wait I do. And wait I shall. Oftentimes it’s a woman, who needs another. It’s a gift I’ve got, I suppose. “I’ve never seen her sit and talk with someone like this” An aura, someone once said. Lures people in and their story they are compelled to tell. I’ve tried to teach it. We give and we take from every interaction. You just have to be aware enough to see it. There’s been some big ones just lately. And what a pleasure it’s been.
She’s a ‘do it all’ Black mother.
A woman of incredible resilience.
We’ve been speaking for months now. Bit of this. Bit of that.
A call from the school one day, her son has self-harmed.
What do I say, she asks.
Everything is money. Money I don’t have.
She checks her sugars. Low again.
I can’t afford this canteen food.
Have to make a poster. Sustainable practice or something like that.
All this technology she says, I’m too slow.
I do what I can. Build her up. See her again.
I do what I can. Build her up. See her again.
There’s a little bit more brightness every time I do.
It’s Friday before last, how was your session I ask.
I was in a room with women doctors she says.
Little old me. I could never. Right at the start…and I don’t think I’m going to make it.
Can you believe it? she says. Women…with PhDs. Not me.
“Back home women get no such thing.” No no. Daren’t even dream.
Days roll on until a week's gone by.
She prances across the library. Beaming.
She’s come to share her joy with me.
A 60 she says. A 60!
My boys are so proud of me. Maybe I’ll make it after all.
Another. Working, studying, working, studying.
Mum needs the money. Physio for the cancer in her bones, she says.
She’s avoiding my questions about rest and nourishment.
Surviving on Mum’s joy receiving another ‘Look what I’ve done.’
This is just a flying visit though. Easy fix, I thought.
We’ve been here a while. Lingering.
I think I’ve said something wrong. She’s welling up again.
No. I’m so grateful to be here she says...with all you kind people.
I ask what she needs. Its courage, she says.
I write it out. A post-it note. Just the trick.
What would my most courageous self do?
Stick it to the fridge I say.
Mine is bravery. I share.
An inspiration! she cries. An inspiration? I cry.
I’m going to make it across that stage one day, she says. Yes, I am.
Her story. Quite overwhelming actually.
Though not easily shaken. I’m taken aback.
Intimate partner violence a divorce did not remedy.
A home of her own, apparently not to be.
In the hospital every other week.
The victim of a scam I realise as we speak.
Held up at every angle.
Yet she shows up. She shows up. She shows up.
It’s what we do, isn’t it?
It’s too much. Quitting. she says. Though I can’t say I believe it.
We’re here for 90 minutes. It’s all out on the table.
I hardly say a word really. I’m all ears, kind eyes and the occasional shoulder pat.
A breakthrough.
Look at me here laughing with you now.
What a relief. To be heard. Maybe I’ll be able to sleep tonight.
Its all stuck with me, a sort of niggle.
I thought I knew what I was doing. I thought I was grateful for it all.
But to be a keeper of these stories. A collector of trust. I realise I was nothing of the sort.
So, on my own journey, I start anew, and that’s thanks to all of you.
This healing thing. Tricky business, really.
Reader, if you find yourself saying I HAVE TO this week.
That meeting, That essay. That commute.
Consider I GET TO
Because not everyone does and some that do give more than we can imagine, even just to be in the room with us.
Share this:
Happy Birthday: The Blog in Pictures, Numbers and Words
Tuesday marked the 8th “official” birthday of our blog. I say official because although the site was created in November of 2016, the writing did not start in earnest until 3 March. Since that early foray into blogging, we’ve managed collectively to clock up quite a few vital statistics
Our 78 bloggers are made of the Criminology Team (both past and present), students and graduates, as well as a number of honorary criminologists. Some have written only one entry, perhaps reflecting on their dissertation, while others have and continue to contribute on a regular or ad hoc basis. It has to be said that 9 of our top 20 most read entries come from students/graduates, another two come from non-criminologists. Certainly graduate and student entries are always very popular. Our most read, continues to be the front page which contains the latest entries, but many of our entries have shown remarkable longevity. For instance, then student, now graduate, Natalie’s (@criminologysocietyuon) thoughts around the “true crime” documentary Betty Broderick remains our most read individual entry, clocking up views ever since the day it was published. This demonstrates the enormous appetite for “true crime” that many people have. Likewise, Dr Stephen O’Brien’s (@anfieldbhoy) reflections on the 30th anniversary of the Hillsborough Disaster continues to be well-read, particularly around the anniversary on 15 April. In the words of the poet, Ella Wheeler Wilcox: ‘No question is ever settled, until it is settled right’ and there is certainly a long way to go to obtain justice for the 97.
As can be seen from the word cloud, which appears on the front page of the blog and below, Criminology unsurprisingly occupies the attention of most of our bloggers and entries. However, it is also clear that social injustice, inequalities and various forms of violence appear regularly within our writing. There is also a strong focus on learning and teaching, as well as evidence of the lasting generational impact of the Covid-19 pandemic (our best year for readership to date).
As you can see from the map the majority of our readers come from the UK and the USA, but we’ve also captured the criminological imagination of people from a diverse range of countries ranging from Albania to Zambia. Some of the countries can be explained through our bloggers’ diverse heritage, for instance, Greece, Nigeria, USA have obvious connections, others, we’ve no idea how our words have spread so far. Nevertheless, it is a very exciting to see the blog’s global reach.
As the saying goes, from small acorns to giant oaks, the germ of an idea has spread beyond any of our wildest dreams. The number of blog entries continues to grow on a weekly basis, it seems we never run out of criminological matters to write about. It has given all of us a space to ponder, to muse, to write through dark days and celebrations, and to continue to engage in Public Criminology. Similarly, the number of bloggers steadily rises, some are in their earliest foray into discovering Criminology, some have years of immersion in the discipline, but we are all learners. In the words of Nelson Mandela: ‘Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world’ so why would we ever want to stop learning?
When we started, we thought the blog would last for a year, maybe, either we’d run out of things to write about or we’d find other things to do with our time. Neither has happened and it seems there is still plenty of appetite from our bloggers and our readers. To both we raise a glass, without you, none of this would have been possible, so thank you! Now, let’s see how long we can keep this up!
Share this:
Tis very quiet on a Friday…
Fridays are an especially busy day for the BA Criminology and BA Criminology with Psychology students and staff: for some there are 6hours of classes today, finishing their Friday at 6pm! What a way to finish off the ‘working’ week: packed full of interesting discussions and learning. However, the vibe on the roads in via the morning commute and the silence rolling through the Library at 10am would suggest not everyone shares in a full-on Friday experience!
Friday evenings would mark the end of a long week for many, and the, hopefully, exciting possibilities the weekend might hold. But as I travelled into Northampton, on my usually very early and busy commute, I couldn’t help but notice the lighter quieter roads. It makes a nice change up- can leave a little later than usual and do not have to comprehend with the stresses of the morning rush hour: but why? Why have Fridays become quiet?
As many staff and students will know: car parking can be a smidge of a challenge when arriving for 9ams: but not on a Friday. Usually, to beat the rush, it is ideal to arrive at campus before 0830: but not on a Friday. 0845 and there remain many car parking spaces- again excellent to set up for a long day of studying but why the sudden quietness on a Friday? Is this a symptom of a wider issue?
There is a peaceful sense around campus today- despite the busy day for some courses. It feels very much like the week is over: should this be so overtly felt at 9am instead of 6pm? I have asked friends not in academia, and this Friday quietness appears to be across industries. Friday appears to be a favourite day to work from home: a gentle ease into the weekend. But should we be easing into the weekend or ending the ‘working’ week a little frazzled and desperate for the weekend ahead? Does it really matter? The grey weather we’ve been blessed with today I am sure does not help, and it is a nice change up from the mid-week hustle and bustle which exists on campus. But why have Fridays crept into this sort of ‘start of the weekend’ status? The Friday evening I can see being that representation: but the Friday morning? Maybe it’s a one-off and next week the roads and campus will be buzzing and hopefully the sun will be shining. But for today, the last Friday in February: its very much a gentle atmosphere on campus.
Share this:
Crime II: Nature and Nurture?
Fifty years after Lombroso’s theory of the “born criminal” an American criminologist explored the origins of criminality from a different perspective. For Edwin Sutherland people weren’t born criminal but more likely influenced by their environment. Differential association became a theory that changed the focus from biology to environment. This change signified the change of focus within criminology from biological attributes to social features.
This change, whilst it appears to have capture a wider social sciences debate at the time is also the outcome of trying to understand a world in motion. Sutherland’s theory comes in the early 20th century after the First World War and a massive economic crash. These placed in doubt the scientific and political economy of the time, putting many of these earlier ideas to the test. Popular movements challenged the authority of the state and the way hegemony suppressed people. Differential association was exploring how people learn crime by observing others; it becomes what Kornhouser called a ‘cultural deviance theory’.
What Sutherland articulated is that crime is learned through group conflict, again attempting to explain all types of crime like the biological theories before. The 20th century with its fast pace, European (World) wars, was the embodiment of modernity, progression and change. The world outside Europe began to rise against colonial rule, whilst civil rights became a rallying objective for many disenfranchised groups. In most countries worldwide women got the vote in the 20th century whilst, many countries recognised unions, and civil rights organisations, a consequence of people’s mobilisation.
It comes as no surprise then that differential association was a theory of crime that tried to account for social change and understand criminality as a process that moves within this change. The foundations of the theory in its simplest form are straightforward, covered in 9 main points:
1. Criminal behavior is learned from other individuals.
2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication.
3. The principle part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups.
4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes simple; (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes.
5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favorable or unfavorable.
6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of the law.
7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.
8. The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning.
9. While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those needs and values, since non-criminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values.
The theory is more than a compilation of points and citing them is informative, but it doesn’t really explain the reach and extent. As a general theory of crime it can account for violent crime, theft and even white collar crimes. This reach of theory coincided with the wider discussion on “normative conflict” that focused on cultures. As discussions on cultural dominance, subcultures and the role of social groups became a sociological and criminological point these ideas introduced by Sutherland seemed to bare relevance.
There were questions already regarding the theory’s basis in terms of clarity as a cultural deviance theory, when culture focused away from poverty and social struggles. The cultural conflict seemed to resonate with certain crime categories, but it could not account for harm, leaving zemiologists to doubt the accuracy of its scope as theory. Furthermore, whilst the focus moved on from an arbitrary biology to the role of the environment some of the fundamental problems expected to be resolved in a general theory of crime remained unanswered.
So what is the answer? We can safely say that crime and most importantly criminality isn’t the product of a singularity nor its binary. How can we account for example for a social phenomenon whose definition of crime (in some instances) relies on law. A mechanism that the establishment uses to safeguard its privileges and position. The definitional factors therefore ought to transcend general conventions of biology or social interaction. Often they don’t, they merely describe the phenomenon but in closed cultural formats. There is a much more interesting and complex explanation that take us away from this binary. If you are more curious and you want to know more, why not join a criminology course and see if you can get the answer you expect or not. Criminology is a fascinating discipline not because we talk blood and bones but because we reflect on the current state of crime and imagine a world of crime (or free of crime) in the future. If you wish to share that imagination you can but join us!
https://www.northampton.ac.uk/courses/criminology-ba-hons/ https://www.northampton.ac.uk/courses/criminology-phd/ https://www.northampton.ac.uk/courses/criminology-with-psychology-ba-hons/ https://www.northampton.ac.uk/blog/why-i-chose-criminology/
Share this:
Crime I: Nature or Nurture?
This is a two-part blog on embracing some of the criminological theory origin stories in the Western hemisphere. Is crime the product of bad genes or bad society? Are we born or made criminal?
In this week we shall be exploring our understanding of biological theories originating back in the 19th century with the “born criminal”. The following week we will look at the role of the environment.
The born criminal.
In 1871 Cesare Lombroso became the director at the Pesaro Mental Health Hospital (asylum) that housed the clinically insane. In that environment he examined the anatomical anomalies of residents in laboratory conditions. The era of the scientific exploration of deviance had begun. These meticulous explorations of bodily features and skulls formed the basis for his later thesis on The Born Criminal. The basis of his criminal population were residents of the asylum. His control group (i.e. those deemed non-criminal) were soldiers. Later, these were combined with the population of inmate prison population Lombroso and his associates visited. As he assumed an academic role in one of the finest Italian universities the world read his seminal publication of L’uomo delinquente {The Born Criminal] .Which in 1876 became one of the publications that influence the work of its contemporaries. In later years studied in exactly the same way. criminality in women using sex workers and prisoners as his research population cumulating into the 1893 publication of La Donna Delinquente: La prostituta e la donna normale [The Criminal Woman: The Prostitute and the Normal Woman.
His theoretical reach transcended borders and became widely read in the English-speaking world. This is an origin story according to numerous textbooks about the biological understanding of criminality. When embellished with some of the original quotes this becomes a theory of crime that explains different criminalities and makes the most significant leap that combines scientific rationale with crime. The methodology of anthropometry is a careful measuring of human features, prominently skulls! The main theoretical “innovation” was the recognition of a state of atavism; a regression onto a prior evolutionary stage for those engaged in crime.
A theory of crime on the born criminal seemed as a logical step at a time hailed as an era of discovery and exploration. A time that social and political movements in Europe asked profound questions about self and society. This narrative of course largely overlooks that whilst West European and US philosophers are posing these questions their elites and establishment are preoccupied with colonialism and dominance. In fact, it is the time European conflict around the world for dominance intensified. By the late 19th century, the European powers will try to manage their dominance in other continents by carving the world according to their own interests. The Berlin conference of 1884-85 is the culmination of such European competition and led to the split of Africa into zones of colonial influence.
In what way is The Born Criminal related with colonialism?
The theory of the “born criminal” breaks down humanity into two; the “normals” and the “atavists” which conveniently separates us from them. The criminal becomes the outcome of a lack of civilisation that can be seen in their physical features. There is history in separating people for the sake of exploitation, subjugation and even genocide. In this context of using civilisation (solely European) as the feature of separation is something previously seen in the colonisation of the Americas. When the European explorers landed in a new (for their map’s) continent the question of whom it belongs to was answered using religious decree. Several popes described the native population of these “discovered lands” as uncivilised and unworthy of human rights. It was the papal “Doctrine of Discovery” that denied the indigenous people rights to their land because uncivilised, faithless people (calling it terra nullus or empty land) do not count. Therefore, this separation for discrimination is not new, but Lombroso brought some scientific veneer to it.
It is important to remind all that “the born criminal” theory was widely discredited already in the early 20th century, when data analysis found no support for atavism and the biological features seemingly associated with criminality. Yet still this approach seems to capture even today some interest in the collective criminological imagination. Can you tell the prospective criminality reflected in someone’s gaze? It is a question that people still wonder, despite any lack of empirical or scientific data. The line of separating criminals from non-criminal provides an arbitrary differentiation that offers some clarity of how criminals should look, in a similar fashion to separating the “civilised” from the “savages”. In this overreaching correlation crime becomes the act of the uncivilised. It can also be flipped over and the uncivilised are the criminals contributing to the continuous fear of those who see the foreigner with suspicion.
A theory about the biological origins on crime that has offered us an explanation of the born criminal that has no scientific evidence but carries populist imagination because we take comfort in differentiating people. Next week we shall be exploring a theory that explores of the environmental factors of crime.
Thoughts from the criminology team 
