Dialectical Criminology: Thinking through the “Science of Crime” with the Antinomies of Pierre Bourdieu

• In Event: Theoretical and Epistemological debates in Criminology (I): New Directions

Abstract

How do we confront a thinker’s apparent internal inconsistencies? At times, the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu speaks in a scientistic vein, insisting upon the possibility of an objective empirical science, while elsewhere approaching a form of radical historicism, by which truth discursively arises out of agonistic contestation between dominant and dominated agents in the scientific field. Bourdieu also insists upon the relevance of what he calls social suffering—a form of pain located in the individual, but whose causes are, strictly speaking, societal—and yet this would seem to reintroduce a form of spontaneous, discretionary subjectivism at the core of his political sociology, despite Bourdieu’s expressed wish to avoid the “trap” of subjectivism. Finally, Bourdieu repeatedly argues against what he calls the logic of the trial, which seeks to assign blame to agents for social ills; and yet, he devoted the final years of his life to political critique, criticizing the neoliberal assault on the social state, much like a good trial lawyer or activist would.

How, then, do we make sense of these apparent internal contradictions? Rather than view them as logical contradictions to be resolved, somehow or other, they are better approached as antinomies, in the Kantian sense: as fundamentally unresolvable tensions. These tensions can nevertheless have highly productive effects or uses. The name of this stance is dialectical thought, which thrives on polarity and contradiction, rather than viewing them as causes for despair. Applied to criminology, this “dialectical pragmatism” can be a useful stance, helping us break out of some of the aporias or dead ends hampering the field. A dialectical criminology weaves between scientism and historicism, suffering-centered accounts and stoic dispassion, political agnosticism and social critique. It would give a “both/and” response, rather than an “either/or,” to some of the fundamental problems confronting the “science of crime” today.

Author

• Victor Lund Shammas, University of Agder