Return to Critical the Criminology Homepage
State of the Division
Stuart Henry
Eastern Michigan University
(From the Critical Criminologist, 1998)
Since publication of the last issue of The Critical Criminologist
we have had the ASC annual meeting and a series of e-mail
exchanges, each having to do with members' reflections on where
we've been and where we're going. At times this exchange was
heated, at other times it was more constructive. Here I shall
attempt to summarize the substance of the differing opinions,
suggestions and ideas of the main contributors to this debate
without attributing who said what, other than that contributions
came variously from Brian MacLean, Marty Schwartz, Walter
DeKeseredy, Ray Michalowski, Gregg Barak, and Steve Russell. This
commentary is intended to be both suggestive as well as
provocatively encouraging to silent voices.
Political Action/Activism There is a feeling among some members
that the original activist component of the Division has been
replaced by a concern for honors, awards, positions and titles.
These directions need not be mutually exclusive, though excessive
attention to the latter may undermine the former by sapping energy
from political action and by reproducing organizational
hierarchical forms. Reflexivity in the honors and awards game may
provide some insulation. However, engaging in political action
requires some agenda and some structure, including a focus on
issues to be raised, policies to be responded to, and initiatives
and alternatives to be created. Others suggest that the division
may not be the best place to ground political action, arguing that
engaging in local community action can contribute to and bring
about more effective change. Not least of the reasons for this is
the view that, as a relatively privileged class, academics
(critical or otherwise) are not going to change much simply by
talking about issues. Yet, both global and local actions are
important. The Division could certainly put more energy into its
commentary on the national debate if, as realists so often point
out, for no other reason than because the conservative and
reactionary right (conspiracy aside) have "think" tanks
aggressively concocting ideological discourse which will claim to
be truth if it is not challenged. Part of the reason for our
patchy policy commentary has to do with the division's
organization.
Division Organizational Issues: Should we establish a Critical
Policy Unit? Some members are concerned with the past operation
of the division having to do with such issues as regularity of the
newsletter, efficiency in reporting on the budget, poor
organization of events, weak attendance at business meetings, lack
of an advanced agenda at meetings, ineffective election process,
unnecessary personal attacks on fellow division members, and
insufficient face-to-face communication between members. I
believe these things are being more effectively dealt with now and
when the new division chair takes over, hopefully further strides
can be taken in this regard. One suggestion was that members need
to keep up communication with each other in relation to the needs
of the division's journal, individual research projects., etc.,
and that this needs accurate addresses. The need is not simply
for a listing but to break down the isolation of those working on
local efforts and to actively encourage member-to-member
communication. A possible way forward from the less-than-accurate
past lists is for us to produce a division directory and put this
on the division Website. We have the capability based on the
subscription to the division and mailing addresses for the
newsletter. With this in place, it might be useful for us to
establish a Critical Policy Unit to directly engage public policy
on crime and justice issues through news releases, media
representation etc. This could operate at global, national,
regional and local levels, and could draw on members' expertise to
help draft initiatives and responses. In this way the energy going
into self-flagellation could be redirected toward addressing
present policy and practice that contributes to our sorry state of
social justice. Other activities suggested that constructively
deal with the division's organizational problems are: (1)
strengthen links between the division and the Division on Women
and Crime, and the division on People of Color and Crime (perhaps
we could get their mailing lists also); (2) recruit new member's
particularly students; and (3) endeavor to make more international
connections. To facilitate these it has been suggested that the
division have two meetings next year: (4) a non-agenda meeting to
discuss the broader issues and to establish a clearly defined
direction for the division, and (5) an advance agenda for a
separate business meeting. It might be useful also to organize
these back-to-back in the same room. Finally, some urgent action
is needed on the division's journal Critical Criminology. This
needs immediate attention on account of its present lack of
institutional support. It might be worth reiterating the
intentions when the journal began. According to one of the
current editors, "this was to provide a non-capitalist venue for
critical scholarly work with these goals: 1) crits would get their
work out more quickly and without paradigm hostility hampering
their publication records, 2) help to institutionalize critical
scholarship in a way that could not be easily refuted by
right-wing colleagues and would serve to move our peers through
the ranks more quickly and to a point where they could be role
models for junior crits and be overall more politically effective
in their praxis, and 3) take the publishers on politically by
removing profit from the equation. In this way, academics would
not be ripped off for their hard work, and students would not be
ripped off at the other end when buying books/journals." So, the
journal needs each member of the division to urge their library to
take out a subscription. The details are in this issue of the
newsletter.
Policy and Direction: Issues for 1998 The redirection and
self-reflection of the past months will hopefully spur us all to
new heights. Beyond the organizational questions what are the key
substantive issues for critical criminology in 1998? A few
concerns are: the expansion of the invasion of privacy from
satellites for an $11 subscription; the expansion of the prison
building program (in Michigan Engler wants to build five more
prisons) at a time of falling crime rates; the false celebration
of community policing as the solution to the crime problem which
may be more a reflection of the absorption of street crime into
the privacy of publicity-shy corporations and the growth of the
unpoliced hidden economy; the failure of traditional radical
feminism to accommodate to the new 90s feminist resistance to
alienation, and the new feminists' valuable investment in
developing their own empowering agendas that don't validate those
of males; the expansion of information freedom through the web
while technology increasingly disempowers the already powerless;
the McDonaldization of journalism in the form of universal tabloid
presentations of crime; the replacement of social science,
especially sociology of crime and deviance from mainstream U.S.
bookstores with sections on "true crime." Any more food for
critical thought? Let us know your thoughts on the key issues
for 1998 and we'll selectively publish these in the next issue of
the newsletter (Spring/Summer, 1998).
===========================================
State of the Division, Continued
Stuart Henry
Eastern Michigan University
Several months ago, the Division head Gregg Barak discovered
that our finances were not looking especially healthy because our
expenditures exceeded our membership dues. Brian MacLean had
reported that at the time he sent out the latest issue of the
journal, there were only 166 paid up members of the Division for
1998. That seemed odd, especially since I had mailed out the
previous issue of the newsletter (vol 8 No 2) to nearly 350
"members" by combining members of the 1997 list with those who had
subscribed since 1997. We decided to do two things: first, verify
the figures on membership with Sarah Hall at ASC and second,
conduct a postcard survey of members to find out if there was a
pattern of reasons for non-renewal. The results are interesting.
Sarah provided me with three lists: (1) current members paid
for 1998 (2) 1997 members who had not renewed with the critical
division, and (3) the lists for 1996 who had not renewed since
then. These were the data on May 4:
Current paid membership of the DCC = 186 (of these 78 are new since 1997)
Non-renewals since 1997 = 158 (of these 32 renewed ASC but not DCC)
Non-Renewals between 1996-1997 = 95 (of these 24 are still ASC members)
So, since 1996 the division DCC has had 439 members and lost
253! This was a worrying prospect, so we sent out our survey in
the hopes of both nudging delinquent non-renewers into renewing
and finding out why determined non-renewers had not. The postcard
survey went to the 158 nonrenewing members who had been members in
1997. Again the results were interesting, although it is based on
only 29 responses that were received by mail or e-mail (18.3% of
non-renewers).
The overwhelming majority of these either believed that they
had renewed (true in only one case), simply had not got to it,
claimed they did not receive a renewal notice or did not realize
that the renewal came as part of the ASC notice (especially true
for three year subscribers who only paid their division dues in
the first year). Most interesting were the range of other reasons
given. These included the following:
#1] "I tend to skip a year or two in paying dues for the ASC and
attending the Annual conference. There are times where I haven't
paid for membership nor the conference (Badges?, I don't need no
stink'n badges). Basically I usually renew my ASC membership when
I go to the Annual meeting (discounts and all that). Second
reason: I had not gone to a couple of the recent Division
meetings, even though I was attending the Annual Meeting, because
I lost confidence in its leadership and direction. But the renewal
of membership really had more to do with the finances (first
reason). I suppose it is an extra task to just try and renew for
the Division."
#2] "As a student every penny counts and I found the general
membership to ASC to be sufficient."
#3] "Probably what I resent the most about the division is its
self-induced marginalization, like boohoohooh, we know everything
but nobody listens to us and we're so good but all the right-wing
fascists got all the money and the good jobs and this totally
discriminating society keeps us down although we have brains
larger than anything you've ever seen before. I hate it, hate it
with contempt, for one, because it doesn't produce shit. And then
I hear all this crap about how we should change the system and
broaden the standards (e.g. of criminological research) and so on,
where in actual fact all that these weenies are after are easier
(!) ways to get promoted or tenure or have their stupid books sold
for their freakin' royalties, which was the only reason they
produced the crap anyway. I am extremely distressed every time I
see so many signs of this righteousness and there's lots of it.
The Division has played some part in all of this, mostly because
it is run by people not principle. If you wanna be in, you better
kiss up to this or that person. And don't ever think it's about
any of the ideas that you would represent, no sirrie, just make
sure to tell them you're a lesbian with mental probles and you'll
count! Fer-sure! Cuz these old whities in the Division really
drool on that. And then you can watch them in their unshaven
selves (and really badly dressed) walking around at the annual
meetings. How very very risque they are, my my! I think there is
a place for critical criminology though and I think I practice it.
But I practice it in the ASC mainstream. There is in my opinion no
viable alternative to invading the bastion and a revolution from
within. Therefore, here is my humble advice: work hard, harder
than yesterday; work even harder than that; talk with the people
that matter; publish in the big-time journals; apply at the elite
schools! Change something, change something and make a difference
(or die trying)!"
Same person, responding to a follow-up e-mail:
"I readily admit that my comments are totally wrong inasmuch as
they were presented in a generalizing manner. Absolute statements
are wrong because they are absolute. Apart from that, however,
there is an enormous amount of truth and value to what I said. I
notice very well that some folks who do manage to get their work
matter and count. They don't have this attitude simply because
they don't need it, but what about all those would-bees,
might-have-beens, etc., it is their complacency I'm up against.
And, yes, like it or not, this kind of attitude is more prevalent
among the so-called critical wing. Self-induced victim-status and
all that. Also, I think, some of my sentiments probably make more
sense given that I'm a junior scholar who is trying to make a way
for himself despite the obvious antagonisms."
#4] "I believe that part of the problem is that there are so many
organizations that tend to pull people one way or another. I know
I am in a couple of sections of ACJS also; and I would probably
join more if I had the time and money. From what I have heard,
the journal will help the Division some; but it needs a little
maturity, to be published a little more regularly and to gain a
little status as a place to publish before it will become a big
draw. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help."
#5]"The newsletter seems to reflect strong political perspectives.
What about some attention to culture or structure without a
preoccupation with power and conflict"
#6] "1) Some of us a simply lax in paying membership dues
generally -not for want to $s, but simply for lack of being able
to keep track of everything. But the rate of drop-out is too high
to be explained that way. 2) I do know that some women dropped
because they were unhappy with the style of meeting conduct that
emerged in the division shortly after its beginning. Knowing this,
it suggested we change the style of the business meeting to
something more inclusive, but it was thoroughly trashed, and a
number of women who had promoted those ideas walked out of the
division then and never returned. However, I suspect we have lost
more than female members. 3) a personal vendetta that has
nothing to do with anything professional, 4) there was a lot of
excitement about the division throughout the struggle to create
it. A lot of buy-in. It is not atypical of any struggle that
once the goal is accomplished some people move off because the
"revolution" falls short of their expectations, or simply because
struggle is more interesting than routine. So some of it may be
the typical moral career of "radical" movements. 5) Another, a I
suspect important possibility is that the division has not been
able to develop a clear message/focus/purpose. Part of this may
be due to its "big tent" character. This makes it hard to come to
agreement about directions. There is (to me) a disturbing tendency
for a not insubstantial portion of division members (at least
active and vocal ones) to act like the left has always acted
-trashing those who do not share their particular "line" on
theory, methodology, or politics - thereby eliminating any
possibility of solidarity. 5) Weakness in leadership, I also
wonder if there are some underlying structural weaknesses in the
division that make it hard for well-intentioned leaders to be
effective. Or perhaps we just need more effective leadership
-which means, primarily, people in the division's leadership that
other people will be willing to help succeed. If people hope that
leaders will fail, then they will. In the end, though, I think it
is the lack of a clear identity and focus that is the key
underlying weakness. Both the women's division and the minority
division have a clear political agenda that they can organize
around - promoting the presence and interest of a clear identity
group. Gender, race, and ethnicity, are powerful identity issues
with naturally energized constituencies.
Being "critical," while important to people, lacks the master
status quality of gender or ethnicity, and so I suspect it does
not elicit the same energy and commitment that those two divisions
can. Anyway, those are just some thoughts."
We could assume that some aspects of these responses reflect
the views of the 82% of non-responders. In any case on May 28 I
received updated data from Sarah Hall that we had 9 renewals from
non-members and 4 new subscriptions, which puts the membership
total at 199.
Clearly, these results are somewhat disturbing and suggest
several options. One of these is to turn the newsletter into a
web-only service (with e-mail to members notifying them when a new
issue is published) and to retain the $5 fee to support the
journal. Another possibility is to create a two tier fee
structure, say $5.00 for those who are also subscribing to ASC and
$10 for those who only want DCC membership. Of course none of this
addresses the substantive ideological and political differences,
though hopefully the results of this survey will provoke debate on
the issue. We welcome your thoughts, however brief!
The author can be contacted at SOC_Henry@online.emich.edu
The editors of CRITICAL CRIMINOLOGY welcome feedback.
Send your comments on this and the other articles to: Stuart Henry, soc_henry@online.emich.edu