Home » Social interaction
Category Archives: Social interaction
What society do we want to live in?
Recently after using a service, I received an email to provide some online feedback. The questionnaire was asking about the services I received and to offer any suggestions on anything that could be done to improve services. This seems to become common practice across the board regarding all types of services and commercial interactions. This got me thinking…we are asked to provide feedback on a recent purchase, but we are not asked about issues that cut through the way we live our lives. In short, there is value in my opinion on a product that I bought, where is the value in my views of how I would want my community to be. Who’s going to ask me what society I want to live in!
Consumerism may be the reason we get asked questions about products but surely before and above being consumers, aren’t we all citizens? I can make helpful suggestions on what I would like to see in services/products but not on government. We profess democratic rule but the application of vote every now and then is not a true reflection on democracy. As we can offer online surveys for virtually everything, we have ways of measuring trends and reactions, why not use these to engage in a wider public discourse on the way to organise our communities, discuss social matters and engage in a public dialogue about our society.
Our political system is constructed to represent parties of different ideologies and practices offering realistic alternatives to governance. An alternative vision about society that people can come behind and support. This ideological diversion is essential for the existence of a “healthy political democratic process”. This ideological difference seems to be less prevalent in public dialogue with the main political parties focusing their rhetoric on matters that do not necessarily affect society.
Activism, a mechanism to bring about social change is becoming a term that sparks controversy whilst special interest groups maintain and even exert their influence on political parties. This allows private special interests to take the “ear of the government” on matters that matter to them, whilst the general public participate in social discourses that never reach the seat of power.
Asking citizens to be part of the social discussion, unlike customer service, is much more significant; it allows us to be part of the process. Those who have no other way of participating in any part of the system will be castigated to cast their vote and may participate in some party political activities. This leaves a whole heap of everyday issues unaddressed. In recent years the cost of living crisis pushed more people into poverty, food, housing and transport became issues that needed attention, not to mention health, post-covid-19.
These and many more social issues have been left either neglected only to be given the overhead title of crisis but with no action plan of how to resolve them. People affected are voiceless, having to pick up the injustices they suffer without any regard to the long term effects. Ironically the only plausible explanation given now that “Brussels’ rule” and “EU bureaucracy” are out of the picture, has become that of the immigrants. The answer to various complex problems became the people on the boats!
This is a simplification in the way social problems happen and most importantly can be resolved. Lack of social discourse has left the explanation and problem solving of said problems to an old rhetoric founded on xenophobia and discrimination. Simple explanations on social problems where the answer is a sentence tend to be very clear and precise, but very rarely can count the complexity of the problems they try to explain. There is a great disservice to our communities to oversimplify causes because the public cannot understand.
Cynically someone may point out that feedback from companies is not routed in an honest request to understand customer satisfaction but a veiled lip-service about company targets and metrics. So the customer’s response becomes a tradable figure of the company’s objectives. This is very likely the case and this is why the process has become so focused on particular parts of the consumer process. Nonetheless and here is the irony; a private company has some knowledge of a customer’s views on their recent purchase, as opposed to the government and people’s views and expectations on many social issues.
Maybe the fault lies with all of us. The presumption of democratic rule, especially in parliamentary democracies, a citizen is represented by a person they elect every four years. This representation detaches the citizen from their own responsibilities and obligations to the process. The State is happy to have citizens that engage only during elections, something that can be underscored by the way in recent years that protests on key social issues have been curtailed.
That does not sound right! I can provide an opinion over the quality of a chocolate bar or a piece of soap but I cannot express my views as a citizen over war, climate, genocide, immigration, human rights or justice? If we value opinion then as society we ought to make space for opinion to be heard, to be articulated and even expressed. In the much published “British Values” the right to protest stands high whilst comes in conflict with new measures to stop any protests. We are at a crossroads and ultimately we will have to decide what kind of society we live in. If we stop protests and we ban venues for people to express themselves, what shall we do next to curtail further the voices of dissent? It is a hackneyed phrase that we are stepping into a “slippery slope” and despite the fact that I do not like the language, there is a danger that we are indeed descending rapidly down that slope.
The social problems our society faces at any given time are real and people try to understand them and come to terms with them. Unlike before, we live in a world that is not just visual, it relies on moving images. Our communities are global and many of the problems we face are international and their impact is likely to affect us all as people, irrespective of background or national/personal identity. At times like this, it is best to increase the public discourse, engage with the voices of descent. Maybe instead of banning protests, open the community to those who are willing to discuss. The fear that certain disruptive people will lead these debates are unfounded. We have been there before and we have seen that people whose agenda is not to engage, but simply to disrupt, soon lose their relevance. We have numerous examples of people that their peers have rejected and history left them behind as a footnote of embarrassment.
Feedback on society, even if negative, is a good place to start when/if anyone wants to consider, what kind of society I want and my family to live in. Giving space to numerous people who have been vastly neglected by the political systems boosts inclusivity and gives everyone the opportunity to be part of our continuous democratic conversation. Political representation in a democracy should give a voice to all especially to those whose voice has long been ignored. Let’s not forget, representation is not a privilege but a necessity in a democracy and we ensure we are making space for others. A democracy can only thrive if we embrace otherness; so when there are loud voices that ask higher level of control and suppression, we got to rise above it and defend the weakest people in our community. Only in solidarity and support of each other is how communities thrive.
Share this:
Does compassion have a place in Criminology or is this a forgotten element in Justice?
In recent months, I’ve been thinking about the idea of compassion and its diminishing presence in societies. Let me start by saying this blog wasn’t prompted by any specific event, but rather by observing the increasing prevalence of hate speech in media and public discourse. More and more, we are seeing this troubling pattern manifesting across all levels of society – from world leaders mocking marginalised populations, citizens spreading hate speech online, media outlets amplifying divisive rhetoric in the name of balanced reporting, workplaces failing their employees on many grounds, public institutions are becoming more and more intolerant of the ‘other’ – extending into criminal justice systems where overcrowded prisons, harsh sentencing guidelines, limited rehabilitation programmes, and the stigmatisation of former offenders all continue to reflect this absence of compassion.
Against this backdrop of increasing hostility, the teachings of Pope Francis (1936 – 2025) offer a powerful counterpoint that resonates beyond religious boundaries. He consistently championed respect, dignity, and compassion towards all people. You don’t have to be religious to recognise the universal truth in his words: “A little bit of mercy makes the world less cold and more just.” This intersection of justice and mercy naturally leads us to examine criminology through that very compassionate lens, because the moment we strip compassion from our criminal justice systems, the consequences become counterproductive. By this, I mean rehabilitation becomes secondary to punishment, criminogenic factors become ignored, recidivism rates become affected as former offenders encounter insurmountable barriers to reintegration and so forth.
The question I want you to ponder over this sunny weekend is: What defines us when compassion vanishes from our interactions? When hatred becomes our default response? Personally, I believe compassionate approaches to criminology do not weaken justice – they strengthen it by addressing root causes while maintaining accountability. I won’t elaborate further here, but if you’re interested in exploring these concepts more deeply, consider enrolling in my new module launching this September on global perspectives of crime, where a comparative approach to understanding and responding to crime will also be explored.
Have a lovely sunny weekend!
Share this:
Changing the Narrative around Violence Against Women and Girls
For Criminology at UON’s 25th Birthday, in partnership with the Northampton Fire, Police and Crime Commissioner, the event “Changing the Narrative: Violence Against Women and Girls” convened on the 2nd April. Bringing together a professional panel, individuals with lived experience and practitioners from charity and other sectors, to create a dialogue and champion new ways of thinking. The first in a series, this event focused on language.
All of the discussions, notes and presentations were incredibly insightful, and I hope this thematic collation does it all justice.
“A convenient but not useful term.”
Firstly an overwhelming reflection on the term itself; ‘Violence Against Women and Girls’ – does it do justice to all of the behaviour under it’s umbrella? We considered this as reductionist, dehumanising, and often only prompts thinking and action to physical acts of violence, but perhaps neglects many other harms such as emotional abuse, coercion and financial abuse which may not be seen as, or felt as ‘severe enough’ to report. It may also predominantly suggest intimate partner or domestic abuse which may too exclude other harms towards women and girls such as (grand)parent/child abuse or that which happens outside of the home. All of which are too often undetected or minimised, potentially due to this use of language. Another poignant reflection is that we may not currently be able to consider ‘women and girls’ as one group, given that girls under 16 may not be able to seek help for domestic abuse, in the same way that women may be able to. We also must consider the impact of this term on those whose gender identity is not what they were assigned at birth, or those that identify outside of the gender binary. Where do they fit into this?
To change the narrative, we must first identify what we are talking about. Explicitly. Changing the narrative starts here.
“I do not think I have survived.”
We considered the importance of lived experience in our narratives and reflected on the way we use it, and what that means for individuals, and our response.
Firstly, the terms ‘victim’ and ‘survivor’ – which we may use without thought, use as fact, particularly as descriptors within our professions, but actually these are incredibly personal labels that only individuals with such experience can give to themselves. This may be reflective of where they are in their journey surrounding their experiences and have a huge impact on their experience of being supported. It was courageously expressed that we also must recognise that individuals may not identify with either of those terms, and that much more of that person still exists outside of that experience or label. We also took a moment to remember that some victims, will never be survivors.
Lived experience is making its way into our narratives more and more, but there is still much room for improvement. We champion that if we are to create a more supportive, inclusive, practical and effective narrative, we must reflect the language of individuals with lived experience and we must use it to create a narrative free from tick boxes, from the lens of organisational goals and societal pressure.
Lived experience must be valued for what it is, not in spite of what it is.
“In some cases, we allow content – which would otherwise go against our standards – if its newsworthy.”
A further theme was a reflection on language which appears to be causing an erosion of moral boundaries. For example, the term ‘misogyny’ – was considered to be used flippantly, as an excuse, and as a scapegoat for behaviour which is not just ‘misogynistic’ but unacceptable, abhorrent, inexcusable behaviour – meaning the extent of the harms caused by this behaviour are swept away under a ‘normalised’ state of prejudice.
This is one of many terms that along with things like ‘trauma bond’ and ‘narcissist’ which have become popular on social media without any rigour as to the correct use of the term – further normalises harmful behaviour, and prevents women and girls from seeking support for these very not normal experiences. In the same vein it was expressed that sexual violence is often seen as part of ‘the university experience.’
This use of language and its presence on social media endangers and miseducates, particularly young people, especially with new posting policies around the freedom of expression. Firstly, in that many restrictions can be bypassed by the use of different text, characters and emoji so that posts are not flagged for certain words or language. Additionally, guidelines from Meta were shared and highlighted as problematic as certain content which would, and should, normally be restricted – can be shared – as long as is deemed ‘newsworthy.’
Within the media as a whole, we pressed the importance of using language which accurately describes the actions and experience that has happened, showing the impact on the individual and showing the extent of the societal problem we face… not just what makes the best headline.
“We took action overnight for the pandemic.”
Language within our response to these crimes was reflected upon, in particular around the term ‘non-emergency’ which rape, as a crime, has become catalogued as. We considered the profound impact of this language for those experiencing/have experienced this crime and the effect it has on the resources made available to respond to it.
Simultaneously, in other arenas, violence toward women and girls is considered to be a crisis… an emergency. This not only does not align with the views of law enforcement but suggests that this is a new, emerging crisis, when in fact it is long standing societal problem, and has faced significant barriers in getting a sufficient response. As reflected by one attendee – “we took action overnight for the pandemic.”
“I’ve worked with women who didn’t report rape because they were aroused – they thought they must have wanted it.”
Education was another widely considered theme, with most talk tables initially considering the need for early education and coming to the conclusion that everyone needs more education; young and old – everything in between; male, female and everything in between and outside of the gender binary. No-one is exempt.
We need all people to have the education and language to pass on to their children, friends, colleagues, to make educated choices. If we as adults don’t have the education to pass on to children, how will they get it? The phrase ‘sex education’ was reflected upon, within the context of schools, and was suggested to require change due to how it triggers an uproar from parents, often believing their children will only be taught about intercourse and that they’re too young to know. It was expressed that age appropriate education, giving children the language to identify harms, know their own body, speak up and speak out is only beneficial and this must happen to help break the cycle of generational violence. We cannot protect young people if we teach them ignorance.
Education for all was pressed particularly around education of our bodies, and our bodily experiences. In particular of female bodies, which have for so long been seen as an extension of male bodies. No-one knows enough about female bodies. This perpetuates issues around consent, uneducated choices and creates misplaced and unnecessary guilt, shame and confusion for females when subjected to these harms.
“Just because you are not part of the problem, does not mean you are part of the solution.“
Finally, though we have no intention or illusion of resolution with just one talk, or even a series of them – we moved to consider some ways forward. A very clear message was that this requires action – and this action should not fall on women and girls to protect themselves, but for perpetrators for be stopped. We need allies, of all backgrounds, but in particular, we need male allies. We need male allies who have the education, and the words necessary to identify and call out the behaviour of their peers, their friends, their colleagues, of strangers on the bus. We asked – would being challenged by a ‘peer’ have more impact? Simply not being a perpetrator, is not enough.
Share this:
25 years of Criminology
When the world was bracing for a technological winter thanks to the “millennium bug” the University of Northampton was setting up a degree in Criminology. Twenty-five years later and we are reflecting on a quarter of a century. Since then, there have been changes in the discipline, socio-economic changes and wider changes in education and academia.
The world at the beginning of the 21st century in the Western hemisphere was a hopeful one. There were financial targets that indicated a raising level of income at the time and a general feeling of a new golden age. This, of course, was just before a new international chapter with the “war on terror”. Whilst the US and its allies declared the “war on terror” decreeing the “axis of evil”, in Criminology we offered the module “Transnational Crime” talking about the challenges of international justice and victor’s law.
Early in the 21st century it became apparent that individual rights would take centre stage. The political establishment in the UK was leaving behind discussions on class and class struggles and instead focusing on the way people self-identify. This ideological process meant that more Western hemisphere countries started to introduce legal and social mechanisms of equality. In 2004 the UK voted for civil partnerships and in Criminology we were discussing group rights and the criminalisation of otherness in “Outsiders”.
During that time there was a burgeoning of academic and disciplinary reflection on the way people relate to different identities. This started out as a wider debate on uniqueness and social identities. Criminology’s first cousin Sociology has long focused on matters of race and gender in social discourse and of course, Criminology has long explored these social constructions in relation to crime, victimisation and social precipitation. As a way of exploring race and gender and age we offered modules such as “Crime: Perspectives of Race and Gender” and “Youth, Crime and the Media”. Since then we have embraced Kimberlé Crenshaw’s concept of intersectionality and embarked on a long journey for Criminology to adopt the term and explore crime trends through an increasingly intersectional lens. Increasingly our modules have included an intersectional perspective, allowing students to consider identities more widely.
The world’s confidence fell apart when in 2008 in the US and the UK financial institutions like banks and other financial companies started collapsing. The boom years were replaced by the bust of the international markets, bringing upheaval, instability and a lot of uncertainty. Austerity became an issue that concerned the world of Criminology. In previous times of financial uncertainty crime spiked and there was an expectation that this will be the same once again. Colleagues like Stephen Box in the past explored the correlation of unemployment to crime. A view that has been contested since. Despite the statistical information about declining crime trends, colleagues like Justin Kotzé question the validity of such decline. Such debates demonstrate the importance of research methods, data and critical analysis as keys to formulating and contextualising a discipline like Criminology. The development of “Applied Criminological Research” and “Doing Research in Criminology” became modular vehicles for those studying Criminology to make the most of it.
During the recession, the reduction of social services and social support, including financial aid to economically vulnerable groups began “to bite”! Criminological discourse started conceptualising the lack of social support as a mechanism for understanding institutional and structural violence. In Criminology modules we started exploring this and other forms of violence. Increasingly we turned our focus to understanding institutional violence and our students began to explore very different forms of criminality which previously they may not have considered. Violence as a mechanism of oppression became part of our curriculum adding to the way Criminology explores social conditions as a driver for criminality and victimisation.
While the world was watching the unfolding of the “Arab Spring” in 2011, people started questioning the way we see and read and interpret news stories. Round about that time in Criminology we wanted to break the “myths on crime” and explore the way we tell crime stories. This is when we introduced “True Crimes and Other Fictions”, as a way of allowing students and staff to explore current affairs through a criminological lens.
Obviously, the way that the uprising in the Arab world took charge made the entire planet participants, whether active or passive, with everyone experiencing a global “bystander effect”. From the comfort of our homes, we observed regimes coming to an end, communities being torn apart and waves of refugees fleeing. These issues made our team to reflect further on the need to address these social conditions. Increasingly, modules became aware of the social commentary which provides up-to-date examples as mechanism for exploring Criminology.
In 2019 announcements began to filter, originally from China, about a new virus that forced people to stay home. A few months later and the entire planet went into lockdown. As the world went into isolation the Criminology team was making plans of virtual delivery and trying to find ways to allow students to conduct research online. The pandemic rendered visible the substantial inequalities present in our everyday lives, in a way that had not been seen before. It also made staff and students reflect upon their own vulnerabilities and the need to create online communities. The dissertation and placement modules also forced us to think about research outside the classroom and more importantly outside the box!
More recently, wars in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia have brought to the forefront many long posed questions about peace and the state of international community. The divides between different geopolitical camps brought back memories of conflicts from the 20th century. Noting that the language used is so old, but continues to evoke familiar divisions of the past, bringing them into the future. In Criminology we continue to explore the skills required to re-imagine the world and to consider how the discipline is going to shape our understanding about crime.
It is interesting to reflect that 25 years ago the world was terrified about technology. A quarter of a century later, the world, whilst embracing the internet, is worriedly debating the emergence of AI, the ethics of using information and the difference between knowledge and communication exchanges. Social media have shifted the focus on traditional news outlets, and increasingly “fake news” is becoming a concern. Criminology as a discipline, has also changed and matured. More focus on intersectional criminological perspectives, race, gender, sexuality mean that cultural differences and social transitions are still significant perspectives in the discipline. Criminology is also exploring new challenges and social concerns that are currently emerging around people’s movements, the future of institutions and the nature of society in a global world.
Whatever the direction taken, Criminology still shines a light on complex social issues and helps to promote very important discussions that are really needed. I can be simply celebratory and raise a glass in celebration of the 25 years and in anticipation of the next 25, but I am going to be more creative and say…
To our students, you are part of a discipline that has a lot to say about the world; to our alumni you are an integral part of the history of this journey. To those who will be joining us in the future, be prepared to explore some interesting content and go on an academic journey that will challenge your perceptions and perspectives. Radical Criminology as a concept emerged post-civil rights movements at the second part of the 20th century. People in the Western hemisphere were embracing social movements trying to challenge the established views and change the world. This is when Criminology went through its adolescence and entered adulthood, setting a tone that is both clear and distinct in the Social Sciences. The embrace of being a critical friend to these institutions sitting on crime and justice, law and order has increasingly become fractious with established institutions of oppression (think of appeals to defund the police and prison abolition, both staples within criminological discourse. The rigour of the discipline has not ceased since, and these radical thoughts have led the way to new forms of critical Criminology which still permeate the disciplinary appeal. In recent discourse we have been talking about radicalisation (which despite what the media may have you believe, can often be a positive impetus for change), so here’s to 25 more years of radical criminological thinking! As a discipline, Criminology is becoming incredibly important in setting the ethical and professional boundaries of the future. And don’t forget in Criminology everyone is welcome!
Share this:
Realtopia?
I have recently been reading and re-reading about all things utopic, dystopic and “real[life]topic” for new module preparations; Imagining Crime. Dystopic societies are absolutely terrifying and whilst utopic ideas can envision perfect-like societies these utopic worlds can also become terrifying. These ‘imagined nowhere’ places can also reflect our lived realities, take Nazism for an example.
In CRI1009 Imagining Crime, students have already began to provide some insightful criticism of the modern social world. Questions which have been considered relate to the increasing use of the World Wide Web and new technologies. Whilst these may be promoted as being utopic, i.e., incredibly advanced and innovative, these utopic technological ideas also make me dystopic[ly] worry about the impact on human relations.
In the documentary America’s New Female Right there are examples of families who are also shown to be using technology to further a far right utopic agenda. An example includes a parent that is offended because their child’s two favourite teachers were (described as being) ‘homosexuals’, the parents response to this appeared to be taking the child out of school to home school the child instead, but also to give their child an iPad/tablet screen to use as a replacement for the teachers. Another example consisted of a teen using social media to spread far right propaganda and organise a transphobic rally. In the UK quite recently the far right riots were organised and encouraged via online platforms.
I would not advise watching the documentary, aside from being terrifying, the report and their team did very little to challenge these ideas. I did get the sense that the documentary was made to satisfy voyeuristic tendencies, and as well as this, it seems to add to the mythical idea that far right ideology and actions only exists within self identified far right extremist groups when this is not the case.
Mills (1959) suggests that people feel troubled if the society in which they live in has wide scale social problems. So might the unquestioning and increased use of technologies add to troubles due to the spreading of hate and division? And might this have an impact on our ability to speak to and challenge each other? Or to learn about lives different to our own? This reminds me of Benjamin Zephaniah’s children’s book titled People Need People (2022), maybe technologies and use of the internet are both connecting yet removing us from people in some way.
References
Mills, C. W. (2000) The Sociological Imagination. Fortieth anniversary edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zephaniah, B. (2022) People Need People. (London: Orchard Books)
Share this:
A response to the Government’s plans to address ‘Mickey-mouse degrees’.
The Government’s latest plans to scrap university courses that are being considered as ‘under-achieving’ through poor graduate outcomes and progression should deeply concern all of us who work in and who have a passion for the Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities across Higher Education. It is no secret that Rishi Sunak and his Government have traditionally favoured apprentices in replacement of graduates. It is a truth that university and higher education is not for everyone, so whilst the value of undertaking an apprentice should be unequivocally un-challenged, this moment of rupture and insecurity for the Higher Education Sector should provoke us to think about how the culture of Higher Education has changed, and why people come to university in the first place. Engaging in these perspectives will put us in a stronger position to contribute to these debates occurring across the chambers of Parliament and at dinner tables across the country. So too should we as academics be actively challenging these attacks on the disciplines that we have passion for.
Before the awakening of neoliberalism, higher education was a vocation and a pursuit for those seeking to climb the ladder of ‘social mobility’. It is without question, that UK universities, particularly in the inter-war and the early post-war period were filled with young people with pre-existing economic fortune and privilege. Universities were not spaces for the working classes, nor for individuals achieving low grades outcomes. However, we can acknowledge that the class-based, gender and racial barriers into Higher Education have improved, yet we still have progress to make moving forward. Since the 2008 Global Financial Crash and the series of events that have followed, the motivations for coming to university have largely changed. Seemingly, it is predicated on a mode of response to economic re-structuring, particularly when the opportunities in the labour markets erode and become increasingly competitive, university seems for some as a suitable option to both buy time and up-skill to ‘stand out’. A sad truth remains however that these gravitations to university have contributed to degree inflation that has changed the way we see and value a degree. These changes have partially allowed the Government to play loose and fast with degrees that they consider ‘worthless’. However, those of us who actively teach and research in the social sciences will know that these degrees are invaluable…. Invaluable through teaching students to critically think about the seemingly ‘normal world’ around them- to question the logic of everyday practices, attitudes, norms and values that are engrained into our social fabric. To work with communities and organisations to identify and respond to issues of criminal and social injustice…. Be that austerity, homelessness, poverty, miscarriages of justice, and inequality. With this in mind, as educators in the social sciences, arts and humanities, we have a duty to show-case the momentous impact of our disciplines. To show-case movements of activism, government lobbying and social change. This emphasises the importance of research, knowledge exchange and adopting pedagogies enabling students to develop these works. Only then, can we put forward cases for impacts that at a government level could challenge these narratives. So too can we utilise these cases to infuse a passion for the discipline that with luck would enable a student to make a choice of coming to university that is right for them.
As a sector, we have numerous challenges facing us…. we need to think like and be activists…. We need to embody what we teach and speak out against those who reduce our work as a ‘worthless’ or ‘Mickey-Mouse’ degree. We may not change the Government’s approach but at least if departments do get shut down…. We went with a fight.
Share this:
It’s all about perspective…
Within criminology, and other social science disciplines, the understanding that knowledge is socially constructed and meaning is given to things from people and their interactions is particularly pertinent: especially for researchers involved with people. And ‘perspective’ can be challenging to navigate, challenging to be critical of and challenging to recognise within and outside of a research context. Thinking about the public, the understanding of the nature of knowledge is often taken at face value and not viewed critically; perhaps a skill or requirement which should be part of mainstream education, then again maybe not. Consider the below example, your thoughts and attitudes towards the actors, actions and outcomes… consider your perspective.
A boy begins testing boundaries with his father, he deliberately disobeys him around where he can go and what he can do. He even encourages a friend to join him on his adventures: ducking away from the adult eyes that are watching over them. The boy is told off for putting himself and friend in a dangerous situation, and he appears sincere for his mistakes. Alas, he finds himself in trouble again; this time with dire consequences. The boy’s father dies trying to get him out of trouble. The boy runs away to a place where his past is unknown, and joins a group of outcasts. He grows up into a young man on the fringes of society. He is persuaded to return home, whereby he is involved in a violent fight, which almost results in his death. Luckily, he overcomes his opposition; finding himself with a only a few cuts and bruises. His opponent is forced to flee. He is triumphant, but at what cost?
This is one perspective and overview: from an outsider looking in. There are other ways to describe the example below (which we will come on to), but firstly: what are your thoughts on the young boy and his behaviour? What outcomes are required, if any, and at what stages of this boy’s life? Is this something which requires support, love and care or surveillance, control and discipline?
Another way of looking at the above scenario is to watch the Lion King (1994).1 The young boy in question is Simba. Maybe you already spotted that, maybe you aren’t familiar with the story or perspectives the film is told by. Perspectives matter….
- For those less familiar with Disney animations, the themes are also apparent within Shakespeare’s Hamlet (c. 1600). ↩︎
Share this:
Navigating the Realm of Harm Reduction in the Midst of Chaos
In recent years, Canada has emerged as a trailblazer in progressive drug policy by embracing a bold approach to decriminalization. This paradigm shift represents a departure from the traditional punitive stance toward drug offenses, instead prioritizing harm reduction strategies. As the nation navigates the complex terrain of drug policy reform, it becomes evident that this move holds the promise of addressing public health issues more effectively.
The decriminalization of drugs in Canada is rooted in a recognition of the failure of punitive measures to curb substance abuse. Rather than treating drug addiction as a criminal issue, the emphasis is now on approaching it as a public health concern. By lifting criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of drugs, the Canadian government aims to break the cycle of imprisonment and provide individuals struggling with addiction access to the help they need.
At the core harm reduction is a guiding principle in Canada’s evolving drug policy. Instead of focusing solely on preventing drug use, the emphasis has shifted to minimizing the negative consequences associated with it. This approach includes the distribution of clean needles, supervised injection sites, and access to overdose-reversing medications. By adopting harm reduction strategies, Canada aims to protect the well-being of both individuals using drugs and the broader community.
The decision to decriminalize drugs draws inspiration from the success of Portugal’s approach. In 2001, Portugal decriminalized the possession and use of all drugs, opting for a health-focused model. Over the years, Portugal has witnessed a decline in drug-related deaths, HIV infections, and problematic drug use. Canadian policymakers are eager to replicate these positive outcomes and shift the narrative around drug use from punishment to rehabilitation.
Despite the potential benefits, the decriminalization of drugs in Canada has sparked debates and concerns. Many people have argued that lenient drug policies may contribute to increased drug use, while others worry about the potential strain on public resources for addiction treatment. Furthermore, investigative reporter Tyler Oliveira has demonstrated the damaging effects of drug misuse and homelessness in Vancouver. From watching his investigation, I wonder whether the Canadian government could better use their resources to tackle issues pertaining to homelessness, rather than creating a wider problem of social ills. While there are calls to treat people with issues of addiction more humanely in Canada, Oliveira’s documentary is shocking and, in many ways, frightful. With images of large amounts of methamphetamine users unable to walk and becoming extremely violent to healthcare workers and the general public I wonder if this more towards progressive policy has gone too far (I don’t know how I would feel inhaling meth fumes on my way to my local shop).
Striking a balance between personal freedom and public welfare remains a challenge, but advocates believe that the emphasis on harm reduction will ultimately lead to better outcomes for everyone….
Decriminalization opens the door for more community involvement in addressing drug-related issues. Local initiatives, grassroots organizations, and community outreach programs gain significance as they become crucial players in the broader strategy of harm reduction. By empowering communities, Canada aims to foster a collaborative and compassionate approach to tackling the complex issue of drug addiction.
Canada’s journey toward the decriminalization of drugs represents a paradigm shift in the global war on drugs. By embracing harm reduction as a cornerstone of its strategy, the nation aims to prioritize the health and well-being of its citizens over punitive measures. The lessons learned from Portugal and other progressive models underpin the potential for positive change. As Canada continues to navigate the complexities of drug policy reform, the emphasis on harm reduction holds the promise of transforming the narrative around drug use and addiction. Only time will tell if this bold approach will lead to a healthier, more compassionate society.
Share this:
What to do with my criminology?
Let’s arrange time and set out two temporal constants: point one: a random meeting now and another one about three years later! The first one occurs during a standard University Open Day; a young person coming to a session to hear about criminology; they have seen crime programmes, read crime fiction, bought some real crime literature and now they feel fascinated. There is an interest there; what happens next? Why did they do it? How did they do it? Many questions and even more ideas of what to do to those who do horrible things. The Open Day is not just a response to singular identities, in fact it takes these curiosities and turns them on their head. Crime is bigger and smaller; its is more and less and, of course, most importantly is socially constructed, meaning that is does not mean the same thing across time and space.
This first encounter, was interesting, informative, and on the way home generated more questions and more curiosities. It is the first step to a decision to come back to read the subject, to get involved studying the course material and engaging in discussions. Suddenly the crime programme seems artificial; it does not explore social realities; the methods employed are too expensive and the investigation timeframe random. Knowledge is constructed on information but challenging the source of that information becomes the tool of academic exploration. Reading the crime novel or exploring true crime literature is not simply a guilty pleasure, it is a means to get narratives to ascertain cultural dominance and to address crime prioritisation (you wish to know more…then join us!).
Point two: an event sometime after the three years; a graduation. Wearing a gown and taking pictures with family and friends. A recognition that three years of study have come to a successful conclusion. The curiosity remains; there are still a lot of questions to ponder but now there is a difference in how this takes hold. The concept of crime becomes complex, interconnected with social and personal experience, but this is just the beginning. Studies haven’t answered the original questions, in fact they have added more questions, but they have given a “methodology of thought”. A process to relate to any situation that is known or unknown and explore the criminology within.
The completion of studies inevitably bring the issue of what to do next. How to use criminology; professionally, educationally, academically. As a social science, criminology contains plenty of theoretical perspectives and those relate to the lived experience and in many ways explain it or even predict future criminalities. Some decades ago, criminological imagination, considered cyber justice as a model of swift resolution, international justice was seen as the tool to prevent conflict and global crisis. Suffice to say that neither worked. Criminologists are more than keen to explain why neither of these work.
At both points we have been there; we saw you struggle at first to set the question, to consider the merit of the argument. We also saw you growing in confidence and writing work that you never thought you would, but most importantly to consider perspectives never thought of before. Your criminology is a tool; an instrument to understand social realities, when people are at their worst. To observe, study, analyse and explain crime without judgment or bias. Your criminology is a tool to let you join those groups that will ask “what about the human rights” that will consider “what is the value in this rehabilitation” that will advocate the objections for those people who are deprived a voice and for you to give them space. It is not always easy working with people who are kept locked up for the protection of others but it is in that point that your criminology lights up their lives. When all others give up and when the systems seem not to be working and when all seems so hopeless, your criminology will give hope and clarity to those who need it.
From a small personal curiosity, this is not a simple journey, but it is definitely one worth taking and now that you finish, you take with you that mindset and the professional obligation to carry it further. It’s your voice and the way you articulate it; it’s your appreciation of the complexity and these are invaluable skills to carry with you. From us, all we have to say now is…Happy journeys.
Share this:
Violence on the Frontline: Guest speakers and CRI3003
Before starting the CRI3003 module, if you asked me what violence was, I was pretty confident that I could answer. Violence, of course, is a “behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something” (Oxford Dictionary). Alike to the Oxford Dictionary, this was also my understanding. It wasn’t until I started the module that I was bombarded by a whole different understanding: violence as institutional.
At first, this concept confused me. I think anybody who believes they fully understand the complexities of violence is not yet finished in their journey to understanding. This module, unlike other modules on the course, allowed students to listen to guest speakers from the frontline of the many institutions in which we learnt about. This, for me, proved invaluable. It helped me understand institutional violence, and why it is so complex. The speakers, albeit brilliant and informing, sometimes themselves didn’t completely understand the concept of institutional violence, and for me this highlighted the exact reason why it flourishes: lack of understanding within the institution. As violence is not understood as institutional, its insidious nature will never be understood, and neither will its impact. Instead, institutions desperately want to point the finger, and struggle to understand violence which has no actor.
In my opinion, not only did I learn as a student from the guest speakers, I believe the guest speakers also learnt from us. The interaction and questioning as a result of these sessions is where the crucial learning took place, as it allowed me as a student to understand an institutionalised perspective, and it allowed the guest speaker to understand an outsider perspective; a view they may not be encouraged to adopt within the institution in which they operate. This cross examination of ideas allowed for a more informed, deeper understanding. I think it is very easy to think you understand a concept, but applying it in your evaluation of the guest speaker’s experiences accelerates your understanding.
It is fair to say I learnt a lot from all the guest speakers on the module, and I believe it is a great opportunity and privilege to have had as an undergraduate student. Just when you think you understand a case in class, the guest speaker will make you re-evaluate everything you had learnt previously. This is a skill which is not only useful for a criminology degree, but also for everyday life when you enter the social world in which is made up by such institutions.
It is for the reasons stated above that I believe CRI3003: Violence from Domestic to Institutional is a brilliant module. Personally, it was my favourite. It consolidated my learning perfectly and allowed me to demonstrate all of the knowledge I had previously learnt. As I said before, the guest speakers allowed students to question their own understanding, and perhaps view a case in an alternative lens. This multifaceted understanding of such complex concepts is crucial in criminology, and life as a whole.
From my experience, the guest speaker sessions are only as good as the questions asked, so come prepared! In asking the right questions, invisible violence becomes visible, and all of the content learnt before finally falls into place.
Thoughts from the criminology team 