Postmodern Theory & Peacemaking Theory

Introduction

Since the 1970s, theories of crime and punishment have blossomed in their diversity. Not only has the study of crime and punishment broadened throughout the behavioral and social sciences, but also criminologists have increasingly adopted perspectives that are no longer grounded in classical versus positivist views of human nature and social interaction. In the world of post-structuralism, post-Marxism, postaffirmative action, and post-feminism, criminologists from a variety of schools of thought, including the critical, constitutive, positivist, and integrative, have come to appreciate the numerous limitations of simple or “non-integrative” theories (Morris, 78).The traditional, one-dimensional models of crime that have tended to divide human beings and society into biological, cultural, psychological, or sociological entities are partially correct at best. At worst, these analyses ignore more factors than they consider (Boulding, 21).

The construction of both modern and postmodern knowledge and its usage relates to social issues and problems. Foucault's work examined the complex histories of social knowledge as codified within institutions. He argued that institutions (e.g., the penal system) could never be neutral. Foucault wanted a focus on how institutions were linked to operations of power in society. He argued that the self was intertwined with social structures. (Caplow, 58) Power was visible through the knowledge of control (i.e., surveillance, rules, and regulations) Challinor, 67). Discourse, for Foucault, involves the institution (e.g., the prison service) putting language to use (e.g., the state formulating a prison policy), and a discipline (e.g., the law governing criminals). Foucault was interested in how knowledge evolved before, during, and after modernity. The control of knowledge has become a continuing political issue with its own discourse. In a postmodern context, times changed but the institutions remain, with little more than incremental changes. Discourses remain systems of exclusion (i.e., for criminals in jail), but the social categories that have been created (e.g., the criminal) remain. Foucault suggests that we question current discourses and examine forms of power and knowledge that are around us in society. The paper critically evaluates postmodern and peacemaking theories (Hampson, 101).



Postmodern Criminology

Postmodernists are unlikely to develop a careful theory of why people commit crimes. Rather, their analysis centers on why some things are considered crimes and why some people are considered criminals (Boulding, 21). There are many postmodern perspectives, but all of them are concerned with language and the role it plays in creating an understanding of the world (as opposed to language being a neutral reflection of our understandings). The dominant structures in society influence the language people use, which means that truth is not absolute, but partial and reflective of power structures. What may be considered fixed or common sense is instead relative. Postmodern criminology has its greatest value in showing which ways of knowing are dominant in society and which are not (Hartjen, 111). Who are the criminals, kids who peddle Ecstasy, or doctors who peddle the chemically similar Prozac? Is a youthful burglar more of a criminal than a multinational company that knowingly causes multiple deaths to ...