Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.
Wählen Sie Textabschnitte aus um mit Künstlicher Intelligenz passenden Patente zu finden.
powered by
Markieren Sie Textabschnitte, um KI-gestützt weitere passende Inhalte zu finden.
powered by
Abstract
There appears to be a mounting reaction in contemporary theory against the ‘cultural turn’ and the extreme relativism of postmodern and poststructuralist theory. Recently, Hall and Winlow (2012: 8) have drawn attention to the urgent need to, ‘abandon criminology’s weirdly postmodern, self-referential gaze’. The authors cogently refer to the recent trend in criminology towards rejecting or modifying the orthodoxy that crime and social harm are the products of criminalisation and control systems. Scholars such as Owen (2012a), Reiner (2012), Wieviorka (2012), Wilson (2012), Ferrell (2012) and Yar (2012) are bringing causes and conditions back into play, and into criminological analysis. More recently, Hall and Winlow (2015) delivered what is arguably a major statement in the form of their cogent call for a ‘New Ultra-Realism’ in criminological theorising. To an extent, it could be argued that there has been a ‘return to’ sociological theory and method reflected in the work of Mouzelis (1991, 1993a, 1996, 2007), McLennan (1995), Holmwood (1996), Stones (1996), Sibeon (1996, 1997a, b, 1999, 2001, 2004, 2007), Layder (1984, 1994, 1997, 2007), Archer (1982, 1988, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2000), and Owen (2006a, b, 2007a, b, 2009a, b, 2012a, b, 2014). This so-called ‘return to’ sociology has been the ‘accumulation of relatively separate intellectual moves that are a blend of renewed interest in classical sociology and in perennial explanatory problems, together with theoretical reflection arising from critical engagement with comparatively recent perspectives that range from neo-functionalism to actor-network theory’ (Sibeon 2001: 1). It is the contention here that the ‘return’ to sociology and the employment of Realist and Ultra-Realist ontologies are certainly welcome moves in the right direction, but we also need to encourage the development of a biological literacy among criminologists, and not be afraid to draw from behavioural genetics, neuroscience and evolutionary psychology in criminological analysis. What appears to unite many contemporary criminologists (Owen 2014; Hall and Winlow 2015) is a scepticism towards the knowledge-claims of relativistic postmodernism and poststructuralism, whether in the form of Lyotardian or Foucauldian relativism or in the so-called, ‘later’ forms such as the criminological theorising of Milovanovic (1996, 1997, 1999, 2013).
Anzeige
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.