In recent years, there has been much discussion among sociologists as to the nature of crime and whether or not it is socially constructed. Generally, crime is an action or behavior that defies criminal law, and the fact that laws vary from place to place and between cultures automatically supports the argument that crime is socially constructed. Some interesting arguments focus on those who have power to make such laws and their motivations for doing so. There is a legal distinction between crime and deviance, in that while deviance goes against social norms, it does not break any actual laws. However, the same central premise still applies here; someone, or a group of people, must have decided that certain behaviors were deemed as deviant. Social constructionism defines anything that has been invented or created by society, rather than something that is natural and exists independently of human beings. Crime is a concept which has been created by humans in society; it could not have existed without humans and therefore, it is socially constructed.
There are many different perspectives that support the claim that crime is socially constructed. A feminist point of view argues that the criminal justice system is largely ignorant of violence, whether it is physical, sexual or emotional, against women. For example, in England and Wales, rape within marriage was only criminalized in 1991 (BBC, 2008). It could be argued that this inappropriately late passing of law could be due to the majority of powerful politicians being men. It is possible that men are less likely than women to understand that non-consensual sex can occur within marriage and that it is equally as unacceptable as it is outside of marriage. In this way, the legality of rape within marriage could support the argument that crime is a social construct. When talking about crime as socially constructed it is useful to distinguish between crime and deviance. There are many actions that are frowned upon by society but are not deemed as criminal. Ken Browne (2011) describes deviance as, “any non-conformist behavior which is disapproved of by society or a social group, whether it is illegal or not.” It seems that deviance is any behavior, which goes against the norms of that particular society. There are many different types of norm including health, religious and sexual norms. For example, a person may derive sexual pleasure from watching dogs defecate. This is not illegal, but it is against what society would consider normal sexual behavior, and this person may therefore be deemed a sexual deviant.
Social construction is a difficult concept to define. Vivien Burr (2015) claims, “Social constructionism insists that we take a critical stance towards our taken-for-granted ways of understanding the world and ourselves.” Supporters of social constructionism claim that the social world only exists as a result of interactions between people. In recognizing some aspects of social life as important, and separating those aspects from one another, and behaving as if those aspects have an actual, tangible reality, people construct social phenomena. According to Paul Boghossian (2001): “To say of something that it is socially constructed is to emphasize its dependence on contingent aspects of our social selves” (1). In other words, the phenomenon would not be in existence if people in a society had not constructed it. Perhaps the most obvious way to define social construction is to contrast it with natural construction. An object that exists naturally and was in no way created by people is the opposite to something that is socially constructed. An example of this might be the berries on a wild tree. Following this definition, it is clear to see how many people see crime as socially constructed. Nevertheless, as Ian Hacking (1999) points out in his article, “The Social Construction of What?” discussion about social construction is frequently related not only to objects and concepts, but also to people’s beliefs associated with them. The social construction of belief is an interesting concept, and it certainly seems to make sense. It must be true that any human being with a belief may not have held that belief if they were somehow different. There are no beliefs that are necessary or inevitable that a human being would form or hold onto. For example, many people believe that dinosaurs once lived on planet earth. However, it is not inevitable that they came to believe that. They might have not even thought about it, or they might have decided that something else must have happened and chosen to believe that instead (Boghossian 2001, 1). As people with certain beliefs decide what constitutes a crime, it seems doubly clear that crime is a socially constructed idea.
In addressing this argument, it is helpful to examine the roots of social constructionism. The foundation of social constructionism can be credited to nominalist philosophy. While the nominalist philosophical ideas date back as far as the eleventh century and are featured in the Immanuel Kant’s works, it is Edmund Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology of the twentieth century that provided the roots for social constructionist theory (Henry, 2009, 3). Husserl’s theory was that the way in which people behave and believe an object to be real, in turn makes them real. Interestingly, therefore, that humans in society believe crime to be a real, tangible thing, it is their belief that makes it so. Philosophically speaking, however, there is an obvious argument that humans could invent anything and treat it as real, but it this treatment would not necessarily make it real and accepted as such in society. This raises the question of how many people would have to believe something to be real, and to treat it as such, in order for it to be accepted by the majority. Perhaps this comes back to the argument about crime being defined by people in power. In this way, it might not be about the number of people who believe something to be real, but who those people are and how powerful they are. As Richard Rosenfeld (2009) points out: “Changes in the legal status of a behavior are often brought about by social movements and may entail considerable social conflict.” This suggests that people do not have to be in agreement for an action to be named as criminal. Once a behavior has been deemed as legally criminal, it is possible that some people may not consider it morally criminal. In this respect, therefore, there may be more than one definition of crime as it can be viewed in different ways.
As with any theory, not everyone agrees that crime is socially constructed. Critiques to the argument come from realist criminology, broken down into right or left realism. Both of these sub groups believe that crime is a real, concrete phenomenon and that it needs to be tackled head on. Right realists take the view that an individual uses their free choice in committing crimes. They believe that a criminal has chosen to commit a crime with no care or consideration for how their actions may affect other people (Administrative Criminology). Conversely, supporters of left realism claim that crime unreasonably impacts people of working classes, but that resolutions that simply boost oppression only worsen the problem of crime. Rather than blaming the individual, like right realists, left realists argue that the basic causes of crime reside in poverty, and this is what should really be addressed. These realist arguments are interesting as in their truest sense; they don’t seem to challenge the assertion that crime is socially constructed. Both the right and the left realists focus on the causes of crime and what should be done to stop it. Supporters of the social constructionist theory do not dispute that there are various reasons for why people commit crimes, or that it is a bad thing for society. What they do is suggest that the whole concept has been created by human beings and by society. In this way, it is difficult to understand why the two viewpoints cannot comfortably coexist.
Crime is a tricky concept that has been invented by human beings in society; it did not exist without people and this means that it must be socially constructed. This argument is much talked about in the field of sociology, and many other disciplines as well. On the one hand, crime is not difficult to define. It is simply any behavior or action which has been deemed, and documented, as legally criminal. However, the definition becomes trickier under close examination. Laws vary from country to country. For example, rape within marriage may be illegal in one country but legal in another. While it is still clear that, therefore, rape would be considered criminal in the former and not in the latter, the act is still the same in both countries. It may be difficult to assess something on the grounds of individual policies rather than as a larger moral behavior. Nevertheless, the concept of crime remains the same. Crime is not a natural phenomenon; it could not have existed without people deciding on what constituted a crime. However, the difficulties can arise when acknowledging that the criminal behaviors may well have existed naturally, even if crime was never thought about or conceptualized. For example, a human being may have stolen from another human being, but in a different circumstance this would not be considered a crime, simply because crime was not invented. Nevertheless, crime does exist in today’s society. It is often discussed and reported on, and many people dedicate their lives to the field of criminology. However, as society decides which behaviors are crimes and which are not, it is clear that crime is socially constructed. Certain behaviors are deemed legally unacceptable, and if a person embarks on such behavior, they have broken the law and they are usually punished in some way. While there is a legal distinction between crime and deviance, both are breaking the norms of society.
Reference List
“Administrative Criminology.” M.H. Education. [Accessed: 23 January 2017] Available at http://www.mheducation.co.uk/openup/chapters/9780335229147.pdf
BBC News. (2008) “Continuing struggle over rape cases.” [Accessed: 23 January 2017] Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7244701.stm
Browne, K. 2011. An Introduction to Sociology. Google Books. [Accessed: 23 January 2017] Available at https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/An_Introduction_to_Sociology.html?id=AQx7ntmy6HAC
Burr, V. (2015) Social Constructionism. Google Books. [Accessed: 23 January 2017] Available at https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zX0GCAAAQBAJ&dq=social+constructionism+crime&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Boghossian, P. “What is Social Construction?” New York University. [Accessed: 23 January 2017] Available at http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/docs/IO/1153/socialconstruction.pdf
Hacking, I. (1999) The Social Construction of What? Google Books. [Accessed: 23 January 2017] Available at https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XkCR1p2YMRwC&dq=social+construction+crime&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Henry, S. (2009) “Social Construction of Crime.” 21st Century Criminology: A Reference Handbook. SAGE Publications. [Accessed: 23 January 2017] Available at https://studysites.sagepub.com/haganintrocrim8e/study/chapter/handbooks/42347_1.2.pdf
Karstedt, S. (2001) “Comparing cultures, comparing crime: Challenges, prospects and problems for a global criminology.” Crime, Law and Social Change. [Accessed: 23 January 2017] Available at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1012223323445
Rosenfeld, R. (2009) “The Social Construction of Crime.” Oxford Bibliographies. [Accessed: 23 January 2017] Available at http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396607/obo-9780195396607-0050.xml
