I

Whither criminological theory?

T h e theory in this book s u g g e s t s that the key to crime control is

cultural c o m m i t m e n t s to s h a m i n g in w a y s that I call reintegrative.
Societies w i t h l o w crime rates are those that s h a m e potently and
j u d i c i o u s l y ; i n d i v i d u a l s w h o resort to crime are those insulated from
s h a m e over their w r o n g d o i n g . H o w e v e r , s h a m e c a n be applied
injudiciously a n d counterproductively; the theory seeks to specify
the types o f s h a m i n g w h i c h c a u s e rather than prevent crime.

Toward a General Theory

C r i m e is not a u n i d i m e n s i o n a l construct. For this reason o n e s h o u l d
not be overly o p t i m i s t i c a b o u t a general theory w h i c h sets out to
e x p l a i n all types o f crime. I n fact, until fairly recently, I w a s so
p e s s i m i s t i c a b o u t s u c h a n e n d e a v o r as to regard it as m i s g u i d e d .
Clearly, the kinds of variables required to explain a p h e n o m e n o n
like rape are very different from those necessary to a n e x p l a n a t i o n of
embezzlement.
E q u a l l y clearly, there is a long tradition of purportedly general
theorizing in c r i m i n o l o g y w h i c h in fact offers e x p l a n a t i o n s of m a l e
criminality to the e x c l u s i o n of female crime by focusing totally o n
male socialization experiences as explanatory variables. Other
theories focus o n big city crime to the exclusion of small t o w n a n d
rural crime by alighting u p o n urban e n v i r o n m e n t as an e x p l a n a t i o n ;
others e x p l a i n j u v e n i l e but not adult crime, or neglect the n e e d to
e x p l a i n w h i t e collar crime.
N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the diversity of b e h a v i o r s u b s u m e d under the
crime rubric, the c o n t e n t i o n of this book is that there is sufficient in
c o m m o n b e t w e e n different types o f crime to render a general ex-
p l a n a t i o n p o s s i b l e . T h i s c o m m o n a l i t y is not inherent in the nature of

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804618.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 2 Crime, shame and reintegration

the d i s p a r a t e acts c o n c e r n e d . It arises from the fact that crime,

w h a t e v e r its form, is a kind o f b e h a v i o r w h i c h is poorly regarded in
the c o m m u n i t y c o m p a r e d to m o s t other acts, a n d b e h a v i o r w h e r e
this p o o r regard is institutionalized. Perpetrators o f crime c a n n o t
c o n t i n u e to offend o b l i v i o u s to the institutionalized disapproval
d i r e c t e d at w h a t they d o . U n l i k e l a b e l i n g theorists, I therefore a d o p t
the v i e w that m o s t criminality is a quality of the act; the distinction
b e t w e e n behavior a n d action is that b e h a v i o r is n o m o r e than physical
w h i l e a c t i o n h a s a m e a n i n g that is socially given. ' T h e a w a r e n e s s
that a n action is d e v i a n t f u n d a m e n t a l l y alters the nature o f the
c h o i c e s b e i n g m a d e ' ( T a y l o r et al, 1973: 147).
It h a s b e e n said that there is n o t h i n g inherently d e v i a n t a b o u t
u s i n g a syringe to inject o p i a t e into o n e ' s a r m b e c a u s e doctors d o it
all t h e time in hospitals - d e v i a n t b e h a v i o r is n o m o r e t h a n b e h a v i o r
p e o p l e s o label. H o w e v e r arbitrary the l a b e l i n g process, it is the fact
that t h e criminal c h o o s e s to e n g a g e in the b e h a v i o r k n o w i n g that it
c a n b e s o labeled that d i s t i n g u i s h e s criminal choices from other
c h o i c e s . It is the defiant nature o f the c h o i c e that d i s t i n g u i s h e s it
from other social action.
J i m m y a n d J o h n n y are confronted w i t h a n o p p o r t u n i t y to c o m m i t
crime: a n u n l o c k e d car. J o h n n y feels p a n g s o f c o n s c i e n c e o v e r w h e l m
h i m a s h e a p p r o a c h e s the criminal opportunity; h e also thinks of
h o w a s h a m e d his m o t h e r w o u l d b e if h e were caught; h e backs off.
J i m m y , in contrast, g o e s a h e a d , steals the car, is unlucky e n o u g h to
be c a u g h t , a p p e a r s before a j u d g e , a d m i t s that he h a s c o m m i t t e d a
c r i m e a n d is c o n v i c t e d , a fact a n n o u n c e d in the local n e w s p a p e r . I n
all o f this, J i m m y a n d J o h n n y , J o h n n y ' s m o t h e r , the j u d g e , a n d
t h o s e w h o read the n e w s p a p e r all shared a v i e w o f w h a t crime w a s
a n d w h a t the courts h a v e the authority to d o w h e n criminals are
c a u g h t . T h e r e is n o other w a y for the participants to m a k e sense o f
s u c h interactions w i t h o u t s o m e shared v i e w o f the institutional
orders i n v o l v e d - in this c a s e those o f the criminal l a w a n d the
criminal j u s t i c e s y s t e m . T h e critical point is that b y all o f t h e m
i n v o k i n g the institutional order they h e l p to reproduce it. J i m m y
a n d J o h n n y , their families, the police w h o catch t h e m , their lawyers,
the j u d g e , all treat the criminal l a w a n d the criminal j u s t i c e s y s t e m
as 'real' c o n c e p t s w h i c h define w h a t J i m m y d i d . T h e y are institu-
tional relationships w i t h i n w h i c h the e n c o u n t e r s w i t h t h e police a n d
courts are s i t u a t e d , a n d institutional relationships that are i n d e e d
c o n s t i t u t e d b y interactions s u c h as those e x p e r i e n c e d b y J i m m y .

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804618.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Whither criminological theory? 3

T h e criminal l a w a n d the criminal j u s t i c e s y s t e m are Veal' precisely

b e c a u s e c o u n t l e s s p e o p l e like these a c c e p t t h e m as real a n d repro-
d u c e t h e m t h r o u g h s u c h social action.
It is not that, as W . I. T h o m a s (1951:81) said, if actors 'define
situations as real they are real in their c o n s e q u e n c e s ' , b e c a u s e this
f a m o u s d i c t u m i m p l i e s that s o m e t h i n g like crime m i g h t not be real:
it o n l y has c o n s e q u e n c e s b e c a u s e p e o p l e believe in it. Rather, crime
is r e p r o d u c e d as s o m e t h i n g real by repeated s e q u e n c e s of interac-
tions akin to those o f J i m m y a n d J o h n n y . Similarly, s h a m e , consci-
e n c e , the p o w e r and authority of the police and the j u d g e - the
things that c o n s t r a i n e d J o h n n y but not J i m m y - are structural and
p s y c h o l o g i c a l constraints u p o n crime w h i c h are t h e m s e l v e s repro-
d u c e d as real by the very e n c o u n t e r s in w h i c h the crime construct is
r e p r o d u c e d . Social structures like the criminal j u s t i c e s y s t e m are
therefore b o t h a resource for actors to m a k e sense of their action and
a p r o d u c t of that action; social structure is reproduced as an objec-
tive reality that partially constrains the very kinds of actions w h i c h
constitute it ( G i d d e n s , 1984).
A theory of a n y topic X will be a n i m p l a u s i b l e idea unless there is
a prior a s s u m p t i o n that X is of w h a t Philip Pettit (pers. c o m m . ,
1986) calls a n e x p l a n a n d a r y kind. T o be an e x p l a n a n d a r y kind, X
n e e d not be fully h o m o g e n e o u s , only sufficiently h o m o g e n e o u s for it
to be likely that every type or m o s t types of X will c o m e under the
s a m e causal influences. T h e r e is n o w a y of k n o w i n g that a class of
actions is of a n e x p l a n a n d a r y kind short of a plausible theory of the
class b e i n g d e v e l o p e d . In a d v a n c e , giraffes, clover and n e w t s m i g h t
s e e m a h e t e r o g e n o u s class, yet the theory of evolution s h o w s h o w the
proof of the p u d d i n g is in the eating. A general theory is not required
to e x p l a i n all of the v a r i a n c e for all types of cases, but s o m e of the
v a r i a n c e for all types of cases.
T h e h o m o g e n e i t y p r e s u m e d b e t w e e n disparate behaviors s u c h as
rape a n d e m b e z z l e m e n t in this theory is that they are choices m a d e
by the criminal actor in the k n o w l e d g e that he is defying a criminal
proscription w h i c h is m u t u a l l y intelligible to actors in the society as
criminal. A t the e n d of C h a p t e r 2 w e will s h o w that m o s t criminal
l a w s in m o s t societies are the subject of o v e r w h e l m i n g c o n s e n s u s .
H o w e v e r , w h e n d e a l i n g w i t h the small minority of criminal laws
that are not c o n s e n s u a l l y regarded as justified, as w i t h laws against
m a r i j u a n a use in liberal d e m o c r a c i e s or laws that create political
crimes against the state in c o m m u n i s t societies, the theory of rein-

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804618.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 4 Crime, shame and reintegration

tegrative s h a m i n g will not e x p l a i n the i n c i d e n c e o f their violation. In

liberal d e m o c r a c i e s the crimes that involve doubtful c o n s e n s u s are
v i c t i m l e s s crimes. T h u s , the w a y to e l i m i n a t e this p r o b l e m is by
m e a s u r i n g crime rates b a s e d o n l y o n predatory offenses against
p e r s o n s a n d property (Braithwaite, 1979: 10-16).
I f the a w a r e n e s s that a n act is criminal f u n d a m e n t a l l y c h a n g e s the
c h o i c e s b e i n g m a d e , t h e n the key to a general e x p l a n a t i o n o f crime
lies in identifying variables that e x p l a i n the c a p a c i t y o f s o m e indi-
v i d u a l s a n d collectivities to resist, ignore, or s u c c u m b to the institu-
tionalized d i s a p p r o v a l that g o e s w i t h crime. I n d e e d , the theory in
this book c o n s t r u e s as the critical variable o n e type o f informal social
s u p p o r t for the institutionalized d i s a p p r o v a l o f the criminal law.
T h i s variable is s h a m i n g .
C o n t r a r y to the c l a i m s o f s o m e labeling theorists, potent s h a m i n g
directed at offenders is the essential necessary c o n d i t i o n for low
c r i m e rates. Y e t s h a m i n g c a n be c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e if it is disintegra-
tive rather t h a n reintegrative. S h a m i n g is c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e w h e n it
p u s h e s offenders into the clutches o f criminal subcultures; s h a m i n g
controls crime w h e n it is at the s a m e time powerful a n d b o u n d e d by
c e r e m o n i e s to reintegrate the offender back into the c o m m u n i t y of
r e s p o n s i b l e citizens. T h e labeling perspective has failed to disting-
uish the c r i m e - p r o d u c i n g c o n s e q u e n c e s of s t i g m a that is o p e n -
e n d e d , o u t c a s t i n g , a n d p e r s o n - rather t h a n offense-centered from the
c r i m e - r e d u c i n g c o n s e q u e n c e s o f s h a m i n g that is reintegrative. T h i s
is w h y there is s u c h limited empirical support for the key predictions
o f l a b e l i n g theory.
A s t u t e scholars o f criminological theory will already be c o n c e r n e d
a b o u t m y formulation. Braithwaite, they will say, is setting out to
build u p o n t w o m u t u a l l y inconsistent theoretical traditions. O n e is
control theory, w h i c h , like m y theory, begins from the proposition
that there is f u n d a m e n t a l c o n s e n s u s a b o u t , a n d rejection of, criminal
b e h a v i o r in the society. T h e s e c o n d is subcultural theory, w h i c h is a
theory o f d i s s e n s u s , of s o m e g r o u p s h a v i n g different v a l u e s from
o t h e r s in relation to criminal behavior. I n C h a p t e r 2, I will argue
that this o p p o s i t i o n h a s b e e n greatly o v e r d r a w n in theoretical d e -
b a t e w i t h i n c r i m i n o l o g y . I n fact, only very e x t r e m e forms o f s u b -
cultural theory are irreconcilable w i t h control a n d other c o n s e n s u s -
b a s e d theories.
T h i s is not a book w h i c h p u t s a torch to existing general theories
to build a n e w theory u p o n their a s h e s . R a t h e r it sees e n o r m o u s

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804618.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Whither criminological theory? 5

s c o p e for integrating s o m e of the major theoretical traditions w h i c h

h a v e c o m e to us largely from A m e r i c a n sociological c r i m i n o l o g y -
control theory, subcultural theory, differential association, strain
theories, a n d i n d e e d labeling theory. T h e key to s y n t h e s i z i n g these
potentially i n c o m p a t i b l e formulations is to inject a vital e l e m e n t
m i s s i n g in criminological theory - reintegrative s h a m i n g .
T h e s e theories c a m e u n d e r concerted attack through the 1970s
from the ' n e w criminologists'. T o d a y they are under attack from
p r o p h e t s o f a n e w classicism in criminology. M y c o n t e n t i o n is that
the m i d d l e range theories of the fifties a n d sixties h a v e survived the
assault of the critical criminologists of the seventies a n d the n e o -
classical criminologists of the eighties rather m o r e a d m i r a b l y than
w e are inclined to c o n c e d e w h e n w e teach u n d e r g r a d u a t e criminolo-
gy. Y e t this is not to d e n y h o w profoundly i m p o r t a n t the m i s s i n g
e l e m e n t s in m i d d l e range criminological theory h a v e b e e n . T h e p a t h
to integrating these theories into m u t u a l l y reinforcing partial ex-
p l a n a t i o n s is not as difficult as has typically b e e n s u g g e s t e d . If w e
fail to take this p a t h w e are left w i t h a criminology w h i c h is the worst
of all possible w o r l d s . T h e next section is d e v o t e d to s h o w i n g h o w
c r i m i n o l o g y increasingly runs a risk of m a k i n g the worst possible
c o n t r i b u t i o n to m o d e r n societies.
O n c e w e p u t this p e s s i m i s t i c analysis of the c o n t e m p o r a r y s c e n e
b e h i n d u s , h o w e v e r , a n d g o back to the positive theoretical legacy of
the fifties a n d sixties left by great A m e r i c a n criminologists s u c h as
S u t h e r l a n d , C r e s s e y , Hirschi, C l o w a r d a n d O h l i n , Albert C o h e n ,
a n d W o l f g a n g , there is s o m e t h i n g quite substantial a n d empirically
s u s t a i n a b l e to build u p o n .

C r i m i n o l o g y as a C a u s e of C r i m e ?

A t least half of the m o s t influential criminologists in the world are

A m e r i c a n s . It is not the p u r p o s e of this chapter to s u g g e s t that the
U n i t e d States has crime p r o b l e m s so m u c h worse than other i n d u s -
trialized societies b e c a u s e it has m o r e criminologists. T h e U n i t e d
States u n d o u b t e d l y has s p e n t so lavishly o n criminology b e c a u s e it
believes this is a necessary part of a national response to reduce
crime. Y e t I a m inclined to w o n d e r w h e t h e r the professionalization
o f the s t u d y of crime is part of a wider societal m o v e m e n t w h i c h has
t e n d e d further to debilitate the social response to crime, rather than
s t r e n g t h e n it.

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804618.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 6 Crime, shame and reintegration

C r i m i n o l o g y h a s b e c o m e a n export service industry for the U n i t e d

States in recent d e c a d e s . T h i r d W o r l d criminal j u s t i c e professionals
are a c c u s t o m e d to discreet j o k e s a b o u t A m e r i c a n criminologists
b e i n g f u n d e d as U N c o n s u l t a n t s , or by s o m e other form o f foreign
a i d , to c o m m u n i c a t e w o r d s o f w i s d o m to countries that m a n a g e their
c r i m e p r o b l e m s m u c h m o r e effectively t h a n the U n i t e d States. T h e r e
are r e a s o n s for fearing that s u c h foreign aid exports not o n l y A m e r -
i c a n c r i m i n o l o g y , b u t m a y risk also the export of A m e r i c a n crime
rates.
Professional c r i m i n o l o g y , in all its major variants, can be u n h e l p -
ful in m a i n t a i n i n g a social c l i m a t e appropriate to crime control
b e c a u s e in different w a y s its thrust is to professionalize, s y s t e m a t i z e ,
scientize, a n d de-Communitize j u s t i c e . T o the extent that the c o m -
m u n i t y g e n u i n e l y c o m e s to believe that the 'experts' can scientifical-
ly prescribe solutions to the crime p r o b l e m , there is a risk that
citizens c e a s e to look to the preventive obligations w h i c h are fun-
d a m e n t a l l y in their o w n h a n d s . T h u s , if I observe an offense, or if I
c o m e to k n o w that m y n e x t - d o o r n e i g h b o r is breaking the law, I
s h o u l d m i n d m y o w n b u s i n e s s , b e c a u s e there are professionals called
police officers to deal w i t h this p r o b l e m . If a child toward w h o m I
b e a r s o m e responsible relationship by virtue of kinship or c o m m u n -
ity h a s p r o b l e m s o f d e l i n q u e n c y , I m i g h t a s s u m e that it is best to
l e a v e it to the school counselor, w h o , unlike m e , is a n expert.
B u t e x a c t l y h o w is c r i m i n o l o g y i m p l i c a t e d in this process o f
e m a s c u l a t i n g c o m m u n i t y crime control? T o a n s w e r this q u e s t i o n ,
w e m u s t look separately at the three major traditions o f policy
a d v i c e that h a v e flowed from criminology: the utilitarian, the n e o -
classical, a n d the liberal-permissive.
T h e utilitarian tradition is u n d e r p i n n e d by criminological s c h o -
larship c o n c e r n e d w i t h the d e s i g n of deterrent, rehabilitative a n d
i n c a p a c i t a t i v e strategies to reduce crime. C r i m i n o l o g i s t s following
this tradition of policy a d v i c e tell the c o m m u n i t y that scientific
control of crime is p o s s i b l e if criminal j u s t i c e professionals i m p o s e
the right p e n a l t i e s o n the right p e o p l e for the right crimes, or if
t h e r a p e u t i c professionals a p p l y appropriate rehabilitative techni-
q u e s , or if criminal j u s t i c e professionals select the right p e o p l e to be
i n c a p a c i t a t e d by other criminal j u s t i c e professionals. U n d e r all uti-
litarian variants, the thrust of criminological advice is toward pro-
fessionals taking over in different w a y s to m a k e j u d g m e n t s for the
c o m m u n i t y , informed by science, to prevent crime.

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804618.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Whither criminological theory? 7

T h e neo-classical tradition of policy advice d e n i e s the capacity of

c r i m i n o l o g y to deliver s o u n d professional g u i d a n c e o n h o w to reduce
crime. H o w e v e r , it p r o m i s e s another kind of professionalization of
j u s t i c e . It proffers a s y s t e m a t i z i n g of p u n i s h m e n t s by jurisprudential
professionals so that they reflect the desert of defendants. T h e n e o -
classical m o d e l takes special affront at c o m m u n i t i e s informally re-
s o l v i n g crime p r o b l e m s outside the j u s t i c e s y s t e m . Police officers
s h o u l d not be a l l o w e d the discretion to 'kick kids in the pants'.
Serious criminal offenses s h o u l d not be dealt w i t h by school princip-
als sitting d o w n w i t h parents to try to sort out the p r o b l e m s of a
youthful offender: if a serious crime has b e e n c o m m i t t e d , that is a
m a t t e r for the courts, a n d the courts s h o u l d a d m i n i s t e r the deserved
p u n i s h m e n t . For the neo-classicists, informal c o m m u n i t y involve-
m e n t in crime control risks both excessive o p p r e s s i o n and excessive
l e n i e n c y by d o - g o o d e r s . C o m m u n i t y j u s t i c e is unpredictable, i n c o n -
sistent, a n d unjust. T h e ideal is a professionalized j u s t i c e that is
m e a s u r e d to deliver s y s t e m a t i c a l l y neither m o r e nor less than offen-
ders deserve.
T h e liberal-permissive tradition of policy advice is g r o u n d e d in
the l a b e l i n g perspective. Becker (1963:9) told us that

d e v i a n c e is n o t a q u a l i t y o f the a c t a p e r s o n c o m m i t s but rather a c o n s e q u -

e n c e o f the a p p l i c a t i o n b y o t h e r s o f rules a n d s a n c t i o n s to a n offender. T h e
d e v i a n t is o n e to w h o m that l a b e l h a s s u c c e s s f u l l y b e e n a p p l i e d ; d e v i a n t
b e h a v i o r is b e h a v i o r that p e o p l e s o label.

O r , as a n o t h e r labelist, K i t s u s e (1962: 2 5 3 ) , put it:

F o r m s o f b e h a v i o r p e r se d o n o t differentiate d e v i a n t s from n o n - d e v i a n t s ; it
is t h e r e s p o n s e s o f the c o n v e n t i o n a l a n d c o n f o r m i n g m e m b e r s o f s o c i e t y w h o
identify a n d interpret b e h a v i o r as d e v i a n t w h i c h s o c i o l o g i c a l l y transform
persons into deviants.

T h e l a b e l i n g perspective w a s i m p o r t a n t to the d e v e l o p m e n t of
c r i m i n o l o g y as a n empirical science b e c a u s e it fostered a n apprecia-
tive s t a n c e t o w a r d offenders. W h i l e positivist criminology u p to that
point h a d s e e n offenders very m u c h as d e t e r m i n e d creatures, the
l a b e l i n g p e r s p e c t i v e o p e n e d m a n y eyes to the w a y offenders were
c h o o s i n g b e i n g s , i n v o l v e d in s h a p i n g their o w n destiny. T h e y had an
interpretation of w h a t the world w a s d o i n g to t h e m , and w h a t they
w e r e d o i n g to it, w h i c h w a s frequently at o d d s w i t h the official
version that positivist c r i m i n o l o g y h a d taken for granted. T h e policy
prescription that g r e w from this appreciative stance toward the

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804618.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 8 Crime, shame and reintegration

d e v i a n t w a s a call for tolerance a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g , a plea to the

c o m m u n i t y to see the d e v i a n t as m o r e sinned against than sinning,
to l e a v e the d e l i n q u e n t alone, to see d e l i n q u e n c y as 'just part o f
g r o w i n g u p ' . W h i l e it w a s a g o o d thing for the c o m m u n i t y to c o m e to
u n d e r s t a n d the m a n y w a y s in w h i c h the d e v i a n t w a s sinned against,
the l a b e l i n g perspective w a s also telling the c o m m u n i t y to m i n d its
o w n b u s i n e s s . Certainly, it w a s at the s a m e time telling the criminal
j u s t i c e professionals to keep their noses out o f the affairs o f d e v i a n t s .
T h u s , w h i l e the utilitarians a n d neo-classicists were giving the c o m -
m u n i t y the m e s s a g e that c o m m u n i t y i n v o l v e m e n t in crime control
c o u l d be d r o p p e d d o w n their a g e n d a b e c a u s e the professionals
w o u l d take care o f it, the liberal-permissive tradition of c r i m i n o l o g y
w a s telling e v e r y b o d y , professionals a n d the c o m m u n i t y , to try
'radical n o n - i n t e r v e n t i o n ' (Schur, 1973).
If the theory in this book is correct, the t e n d e n c y o f e a c h of these
major traditions o f criminological policy a d v i c e to imply a neutra-
lization o f c o m m u n i t y activism in crime control positively encour-
a g e s crime. C r i m e is best controlled w h e n m e m b e r s of the c o m m u n -
ity are the primary controllers through active participation in s h a m -
ing offenders, a n d , h a v i n g s h a m e d t h e m , through concerted parti-
c i p a t i o n in w a y s o f reintegrating the offender back into the c o m m u n -
ity o f l a w a b i d i n g citizens. L o w crime societies are societies w h e r e
p e o p l e d o not m i n d their o w n b u s i n e s s , w h e r e tolerance o f d e v i a n c e
h a s definite limits, w h e r e c o m m u n i t i e s prefer to h a n d l e their o w n
crime p r o b l e m s rather than h a n d t h e m over to professionals. I n this,
I a m not s u g g e s t i n g the r e p l a c e m e n t o f 'the rule o f law' w i t h 'the
rule o f m a n ' . H o w e v e r , I a m s a y i n g that the rule o f l a w will a m o u n t
to a m e a n i n g l e s s set o f formal s a n c t i o n i n g p r o c e e d i n g s w h i c h will be
p e r c e i v e d as arbitrary unless there is c o m m u n i t y i n v o l v e m e n t in
m o r a l i z i n g a b o u t a n d h e l p i n g w i t h the crime p r o b l e m .
T h e r e is a fourth p r o m i n e n t tradition o f policy a d v i c e w h i c h ,
unlike the other three, d o e s not r e c o m m e n d c h a n g e s to the criminal
j u s t i c e s y s t e m . T h i s fourth tradition is p o p u l a t e d by M a r x i s t s w h o
see the o v e r t h r o w o f c a p i t a l i s m as a route to a crime-free society, or
at least to a society w i t h m u c h less crime, a n d o p p o r t u n i t y theorists
s u c h as those d i s c u s s e d in the next chapter, w h o see other fun-
d a m e n t a l structural c h a n g e s , m a i n l y in class inequalities, as policies
for c r i m e reduction. Sadly, h o w e v e r , the policy a d v i c e of c r i m i n o l o g -
ists is o n l y ever taken seriously w h e n it is directed at the criminal
j u s t i c e s y s t e m , so this fourth major tradition o f criminological policy

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804618.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Whither criminological theory? 9

a d v i c e is o f n o c o n s e q u e n c e in influencing events. T h e world is yet to

see a socialist revolution inspired by the desire to eliminate crime;
a n d in m y o w n c a p a c i t y as a m e m b e r of Australia's Economic
P l a n n i n g A d v i s o r y C o u n c i l , I w a i t e d four years w i t h o u t w i t n e s s i n g a
s u g g e s t i o n that a consideration against o n e policy choice rather than
a n o t h e r w a s the i m p a c t o n crime.
N o n e o f this is to d e n y that there h a v e not b e e n s o m e t r e m e n d o u s -
ly v a l u a b l e pockets of policy a d v i c e supplied by criminology. In
C h a p t e r s 9 a n d 10 a n u m b e r of t h e m will be d i s c u s s e d . Perhaps s u c h
c o n t r i b u t i o n s h a v e m e a n t that criminology has m a d e more positive
t h a n n e g a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s to crime control. W e will never k n o w
the a n s w e r to a q u e s t i o n like this. T h e c o n t e n t i o n here has b e e n
s i m p l y that the three major traditions of policy advice run a real risk
o f c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v i t y if the theory in this book is correct.

Human Agency and Criminological Theory

C r i m i n o l o g i c a l theory has t e n d e d to a d o p t a rather passive c o n c e p -
tion o f the criminal. C r i m i n a l b e h a v i o r is d e t e r m i n e d by biological,
p s y c h o l o g i c a l a n d social structural variables over w h i c h the criminal
h a s little control. T h e theory of reintegrative s h a m i n g , in contrast,
a d o p t s a n active c o n c e p t i o n of the criminal. T h e criminal is seen as
m a k i n g c h o i c e s - to c o m m i t crime, to j o i n a subculture, to a d o p t a
d e v i a n t self-concept, to reintegrate herself, to respond to others'
gestures o f reintegration - against a b a c k g r o u n d of societal pressures
m e d i a t e d by s h a m i n g .
T h e latter pressures m i g h t m e a n that the choices are s o m e w h a t
c o n s t r a i n e d c h o i c e s , b u t they are choices. T h i s is especially so
b e c a u s e the theory of reintegrative s h a m i n g explains c o m p l i a n c e
w i t h the l a w by the m o r a l i z i n g qualities of social control rather than
by its repressive qualities. S h a m i n g is c o n c e i v e d as a tool to allure
a n d i n v e i g l e the citizen to attend to the moral claims of the criminal
law, to c o a x a n d caress c o m p l i a n c e , to reason and remonstrate w i t h
h i m over the harmfulness of his c o n d u c t . T h e citizen is ultimately
free to reject these a t t e m p t s to p e r s u a d e through social disapproval.
A n irony o f the theory is the c o n t e n t i o n that moralizing social
control is m o r e likely to secure c o m p l i a n c e w i t h the law than repres-
sive social control. B e c a u s e criminal b e h a v i o r is m o s t l y harmful by
a n y m o r a l yardstick, a n d agreed to be so by m o s t citizens, moraliz-
ing a p p e a l s w h i c h treat the citizen as s o m e o n e w i t h the responsibil-

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804618.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 10 Crime, shame and reintegration

ity to m a k e the right c h o i c e are generally, t h o u g h not invariably,

r e s p o n d e d to m o r e positively than repressive controls w h i c h d e n y
h u m a n d i g n i t y by treating persons as a m o r a l calculators. A culture
i m p r e g n a t e d w i t h high moral e x p e c t a t i o n s o f its citizens, p u b l i c l y
e x p r e s s e d , will deliver superior crime control c o m p a r e d w i t h a cul-
ture w h i c h sees control as a c h i e v a b l e by inflicting p a i n o n its b a d
apples.
I n a d d i t i o n to the e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l rationale for c o n c e i v i n g p e o p l e
as c h o o s i n g in light o f societal pressures rather than b e i n g deter-
m i n e d by t h e m , there is thus also s u g g e s t e d a n empirical rationale:
m o r a l i z i n g w h i c h then leaves a g e n c y in the h a n d s of the citizen is
m o r e likely to work in the l o n g run than a policy of a t t e m p t i n g to
r e m o v e a g e n c y from the citizen by repressive control. T h e e p i s t e m o -
logical c l a i m a n d the empirical c l a i m are linked to a n o r m a t i v e
claim: a shift o f the b a l a n c e o f social control a w a y from repression
a n d t o w a r d social control by m o r a l i z i n g is a g o o d thing. T h e tradi-
tion o f linking the empirical c l a i m that repressive control d o e s not
work w i t h the n o r m a t i v e c l a i m that it is w r o n g dates at least from
Dürkheim:

Ideas and feelings need not be expressed through... untoward manifestations

of force, in order to be communicated. As a matter of fact such punishments
constitute today quite a serious moral handicap. They affront a feeling that
is at the bottom of all our morality, the religious respect in which the human
person is held. By virtue of this respect, all violence exercised on a person
seems to us, in principle, like sacrilege. In beating, in brutality of all kinds,
there is something we find repugnant, something that revolts our conscience
— in a word, something immoral. Now, defending morality by means repudi-
ated by it, is a remarkable way of protecting morality. It weakens on the one
hand the sentiments that one wishes to strengthen on the other.
(Dürkheim, 1961: 182-3)

H e n c e , s h a m i n g is c o n c e i v e d in this theory as a m e a n s of m a k i n g
citizens actively responsible, of informing t h e m of h o w justifiably
resentful their fellow citizens are toward criminal b e h a v i o r w h i c h
h a r m s t h e m . I n practice, s h a m i n g surely limits a u t o n o m y , m o r e
surely t h a n repression, b u t it d o e s so by c o m m u n i c a t i n g moral
c l a i m s o v e r w h i c h other citizens c a n reasonably be e x p e c t e d to
express d i s g u s t s h o u l d w e c h o o s e to ignore t h e m . In other w o r d s ,
s h a m i n g is a route to freely c h o s e n c o m p l i a n c e , w h i l e repressive
social control is a route to coerced c o m p l i a n c e . Repressive social
control, as by i m p r i s o n m e n t , restricts our a u t o n o m y by forced

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804618.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Whither criminological theory? 11

l i m i t a t i o n o f our choices; m o r a l i z i n g social control restricts our

a u t o n o m y by inviting us to see that w e c a n n o t be w h o l e moral
p e r s o n s t h r o u g h c o n s i d e r i n g only our o w n interests in the choices w e
m a k e . W e are s h a m e d if w e exercise our o w n a u t o n o m y in a w a y
that t r a m p l e s o n the a u t o n o m y of others.
A m o r a l e d u c a t i v e n o r m a t i v e theory of social control aspires to
p u t the a c c u s e d in a position w h e r e she m u s t either argue for her
i n n o c e n c e , a d m i t guilt a n d express remorse, or contest the legitima-
cy o f the n o r m s she is a c c u s e d of infringing. It seeks to foreclose the
alternative of t e r m i n a t i n g moral reasoning over alleged w r o n g d o i n g
by 'exclusion' of the a c c u s e d . S u c h a theory therefore a c c o m m o d a t e s
civil d i s o b e d i e n c e better t h a n traditional theories o f p u n i s h m e n t . A
moral e d u c a t i o n theory forges a vital role for q u e s t i o n i n g by the
p e r s o n w h o c h a l l e n g e s the j u s t i c e of the n o r m a t i v e order: she forces
the state 'to c o m m i t itself, in full v i e w of the rest of society, to the
idea that her actions s h o w she n e e d s moral e d u c a t i o n ' ( H a m p t o n ,
1984: 2 2 1 ) . A deterrence theory, in contrast, raises n o p r o b l e m s w i t h
the s i l e n c i n g o f critics, the suffocation of moralizing o n both sides, by
locking the offender a w a y from c o m m u n i t y contact.
For s o m e readers the theory of reintegrative s h a m i n g will u n -
d o u b t e d l y raise the spectre of a society of informers a n d b u s y b o d i e s ,
of t h o u g h t control, a society w h e r e i n diversity c a n n o t be tolerated.
S h a m i n g c a n foster s u c h a society. A s Andrei Siniavsky said in his
trial before the People's T r i b u n a l in M o s c o w , 1966:

Think of it please, I am different from others, yes different, but I am not an

enemy. I am a soviet person and my art is not subversive - it is only
different. In this tense atmosphere anything which is different would seem
subversive - but why do you have to look for enemies, to create monsters
where there are none? (Quoted in Shoham, 1970: 98)

S i n i a v s k y m a k e s t w o pleas here. H e asks not to be treated as a

'monster'. ( I n the l a n g u a g e of m y theory, he asks not to be s t i g m a -
tized.) S e c o n d , he is c l a i m i n g that his art d o e s n o h a r m a n d there-
fore s h o u l d be tolerated. T h e s e are reasonable pleas. Behavior
s h o u l d never be p u n i s h e d or publicly s h a m e d as criminal if it risks
n o h a r m to other citizens; a n d e v e n w h e n it d o e s h a r m , the offender
s h o u l d be s h a m e d or p u n i s h e d w i t h dignity rather than stigmatized
as a m o n s t e r or outcast.
S h a m i n g w h i c h c o m p l i e s w i t h these t w o requirements will not be
oppressive. Shaming which eschews stigmatization, which shames

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804618.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 12 Crime, shame and reintegration

w i t h i n a c o n t i n u u m o f h u m a n respect, m a x i m i z e s prospects that

b e h a v i o r w h i c h is n o t harmful to others will b e tolerated. I n a liberal
society, s h a m i n g is n e e d e d to s a n c t i o n t h o s e w h o d o h a r m b y res-
tricting the freedom o f others to e n g a g e in n o n - c r i m i n a l d e v i a n c e .
A society w h i c h neglects the n e e d to s h a m e harmful criminal
b e h a v i o r will be a society w h i c h e n c o u r a g e s its citizens to a m o r a l
e n c r o a c h m e n t s u p o n the freedom o f others. In C h a p t e r 9, it will be
a r g u e d that societies w h i c h fail to exercise informal social control
w i t h i n local c o m m u n i t i e s , families, schools a n d other p r o x i m a t e
g r o u p s find t h e m s e l v e s w i t h n o political c h o i c e but to resort to
repressive control by the state. C o m m u n i t a r i a n societies, it will be
a r g u e d , are m o r e free to c h o o s e their m i x b e t w e e n formal state
control a n d informal c o m m u n i t y control. Effective c o m m u n i t a r i a n
s h a m i n g therefore e x p a n d s the s c o p e for p u r s u i n g less repressive
criminal j u s t i c e policies. A s F e i n b e r g put it: T o d a y w e prefer not to
b e c o m e i n v o l v e d in the control o f crime, w i t h the result that those
w h o are c h a r g e d w i t h the control o f crime b e c o m e m o r e a n d m o r e
i n v o l v e d w i t h us* (Feinberg, 1970:240).
S h a m i n g is a d a n g e r o u s g a m e . D o n e oppressively, it c a n be used
for t h o u g h t control a n d stultification of h u m a n diversity. N o t d o n e
m u c h at all, it u n l e a s h e s a w a r o f all against all, the m a x i m a l l y
repressive state, a n d tolerance o f a situation w h e r e s o m e citizens
t r a m p l e o n the rights o f others. W h i c h e v e r w a y w e play it, it is a
g a m e that matters. H a p p i l y , the w a y the s h a m i n g g a m e unfolds is
not i n e x o r a b l y d e t e r m i n e d . T h e r e is s c o p e for political choice; this
s c o p e for h u m a n a g e n c y m a k e s it worth our while d e v e l o p i n g a n
u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the p o w e r o f s h a m i n g .

A Preliminary Sketch of the T h e o r y

T h e first s t e p to p r o d u c t i v e theorizing a b o u t crime is to think a b o u t

the c o n t e n t i o n that l a b e l i n g offenders m a k e s things worse. The
c o n t e n t i o n is b o t h right a n d w r o n g . T h e theory o f reintegrative
s h a m i n g is a n a t t e m p t to specify w h e n it is right and w h e n w r o n g .
T h e distinction is b e t w e e n s h a m i n g that leads to s t i g m a t i z a t i o n - to
o u t c a s t i n g , to confirmation o f a d e v i a n t m a s t e r status - versus
s h a m i n g that is reintegrative, that s h a m e s w h i l e m a i n t a i n i n g b o n d s
o f respect or love, that sharply terminates disapproval w i t h forgive-
n e s s , instead o f amplifying d e v i a n c e by progressively casting the

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804618.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Whither criminological theory? 13

d e v i a n t out. R e i n t e g r a t i v e s h a m i n g controls crime; stigmatization

p u s h e s offenders t o w a r d criminal subcultures.
T h e s e c o n d s t e p to m o r e p r o d u c t i v e theorizing a b o u t crime is to
realize w h a t scholars like S u t h e r l a n d , Cressey and Glaser grasped
l o n g a g o - that criminality is a function of the ratio of associations
favorable to crime to those unfavorable to crime. If this is a banal
point, it is o n e that criminological theorists systematically forget. A s
D a n i e l G l a s e r c o m m e n t e d o n a n earlier draft of this book:

What we need to develop and operationalize in various social contexts is a

theory of tipping points, of the persons and circumstances in which particu-
lar types of labeling and punishment shift the predominant stake of the
subjects from conformity to nonconformity with the legal norms, and vice
versa. Much of the difference between delinquency theorists reflects the fact
that the samples they studied were on different sides of this tipping point.
Hirshi focussed on the 75 percent of a cross-section of secondary school
students who completed his questionnaires, and were predominantly not
very delinquent, while Shaw and McKay as well as Murray and Cox
studied repeatedly arrested youths in delinquent and criminal gangs from
high crime-rate slums. Like the blind Hindus in the legend, each general-
ized from the different parts of the elephant that they encountered.

T h e theory of reintegrative s h a m i n g c o n t e n d s that w e can sensibly

talk a b o u t criminal subcultures. W e require a theory w h i c h c o m e s to
grips w i t h the m u l t i p l e moralities w h i c h exist in contemporary
societies. A severe limitation of theories that d e n y this, like Hirschi's
control theory, is that they give no a c c o u n t of w h y s o m e uncontrol-
led i n d i v i d u a l s b e c o m e heroin users, s o m e b e c o m e hit m e n , a n d
others price fixing conspirators. A t the s a m e time, w e m u s t recog-
nize that the criminal law is a powerfully d o m i n a n t majoritarian
morality c o m p a r e d w i t h the minority subculture of the heroin user
or the industry association's price fixing circle. T h e r e is a powerful
c o n s e n s u s in m o d e r n industrial societies over the Tightness of cri-
m i n a l l a w s w h i c h protect our persons and property, if not over
v i c t i m l e s s crimes. E v e n m o s t criminal subcultures d o not transmit
an outright rejection of the criminal law, rather they transmit m e a n s
of rationalizing temporary s u s p e n s i o n of one's c o m m i t m e n t to the
law, s y m b o l i c resources for insulating the offender from s h a m e .
T h e theory is o n e of predatory crime - w h e t h e r perpetrated by
j u v e n i l e d e l i n q u e n t s , street offenders or business executives - of
violations of criminal laws w h i c h prohibit o n e person from preying
o n others. Societies that s h a m e effectively will be more successful in

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804618.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 14 Crime, shame and reintegration

controlling predatory crime b e c a u s e there will be m o r e s h a m i n g

directed at n o n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h the l a w than s h a m i n g (within s u b -
cultures) for c o m p l y i n g w i t h the l a w . It is i m p o r t a n t to u n d e r s t a n d
that for d o m a i n s w h e r e the criminal law d o e s not represent a clearly
majoritarian morality, the theory o f reintegrative s h a m i n g will fail to
e x p l a i n variation in behavior. It provides a thoroughly i n a d e q u a t e
a c c o u n t o f n o n p r e d a t o r y criminal b e h a v i o r like h o m o s e x u a l i t y be-
c a u s e , e v e n in a society w i t h great capacities to s h a m e effectively, if
h a l f the p o p u l a t i o n d o e s not believe the b e h a v i o r s h o u l d be criminal-
ized, there m a y be as m u c h s h a m i n g directed at g a y s w h o refuse to
c o m e o u t o f the closet, a n d at those w h o oppress h o m o s e x u a l s , as
there is s h a m i n g directed at the offending itself. T h e theory of
reintegrative s h a m i n g is not a satisfactory general theory of d e v i a n c e
b e c a u s e its e x p l a n a t o r y p o w e r declines as d i s s e n s u s increases over
w h e t h e r the c o n d u c t s h o u l d be v i e w e d as d e v i a n t . It is best reserved
for that d o m a i n w h e r e there is strong c o n s e n s u s , that o f predatory
c r i m e s (crimes i n v o l v i n g v i c t i m i z a t i o n of o n e party by a n o t h e r ) .
W h i l e it is true w i t h respect to this d o m a i n that criminal s u b c u l -
tures are a l w a y s minority p h e n o m e n a , s o m e types of societies will
h a v e m o r e virulent criminal subcultures than others. For e x a m p l e ,
societies w h i c h segregate o p p r e s s e d racial minorities into s t i g m a -
tized n e i g h b o r h o o d s create the c o n d i t i o n s for criminal subculture
formation.
T h e theory of reintegrative s h a m i n g posits that the c o n s e q u e n c e
o f s t i g m a t i z a t i o n is attraction to criminal subcultures. S u b c u l t u r e s
s u p p l y the o u t c a s t offender w i t h the o p p o r t u n i t y to reject her rejec-
tors, thereby m a i n t a i n i n g a form of self-respect. In contrast, the
c o n s e q u e n c e o f reintegrative s h a m i n g is that criminal subcultures
a p p e a r less attractive to the offender. S h a m i n g is the m o s t p o t e n t
w e a p o n o f social control unless it s h a d e s into s t i g m a t i z a t i o n . F o r m a l
criminal p u n i s h m e n t is a n ineffective w e a p o n of social control partly
b e c a u s e it is a d e g r a d a t i o n c e r e m o n y w i t h m a x i m u m prospects for
stigmatization.
T h e n u b o f the theory of reintegrative s h a m i n g is therefore a b o u t
the effectiveness of reintegrative s h a m i n g and the counterproductiv-
ity of s t i g m a t i z a t i o n in controlling crime. In addition, the theory
posits a n u m b e r o f c o n d i t i o n s that m a k e for effective shaming.
I n d i v i d u a l s are m o r e susceptible to s h a m i n g w h e n they are en-
meshed in multiple relationships of interdependency; societies
s h a m e m o r e effectively w h e n they are c o m m u n i t a r i a n . V a r i a b l e s like

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804618.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Whither criminological theory? 15

urbanization and residential mobility predict communitarianism,

while variables like age and gender predict individual inter-
d e p e n d e n c y . A schematic summary o f these aspects o f the theory is
presented in Figure 1 (page 94).
S o m e o f the ways that the theory o f reintegrative shaming builds
o n earlier theories should now be clear. I n t e r d e p e n d e n c y is the stuff
o f control theory; stigmatization c o m e s from labeling theory; subcul-
ture formation is accounted for in opportunity theory terms; sub-
cultural influences are naturally in the realm o f subcultural theory;
and the whole theory can be understood in integrative cognitive
social learning theory terms such as are provided by differential
association.
Given that we plan to integrate elements o f all these traditions
into o n e theoretical framework, we cannot escape the labor o f sum-
marizing the things they have to say that are relevant. T h i s we d o in
the next chapter, along with a justification o f the premise that
substantial consensus over the evil o f predatory crime exists in
m o d e r n societies. Readers w h o are not particularly interested in an
account o f these theories, o f their strengths and o f the limitations
requiring redress by a more encompassing theory, n e e d only read
just the first section o n labeling and the conclusion to the next
chapter. Chapter 3 then runs through the facts a theory o f crime
must fit to be credible - the well established correlates o f crime - and
argues that the dominant theoretical traditions, read in isolation
from each other, d o not supply a compelling account of these facts.
Less than diligent readers might skim this chapter also. In Chapter 4
we get d o w n to the theory itself.

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804618.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press