Full text loading...
Abstract
This review looks at the main ideas that have animated cultural criminology in the past while suggesting new directions the perspective might follow going forward. It discusses early definitions and subject matters; the historical contexts within which cultural criminology was initially welcomed; and cultural criminology's special emphasis on the importance of studying emotions as well as rationality to fully comprehend crime and criminality. Three older critiques of cultural criminology and one lesser known one are also outlined: theoretical vagueness; underemphases on class, structural factors, and conjunctural analyses; insufficient attention to gender and intersectionality; and, a relatively less discussed concern, prioritizing symbolic interactionism rather than sometimes tapping Freudian psychosocial concepts when investigating matters of individual agency. I argue that cultural criminology distinctively recommends multidimensional analyses as called for by the complex character of crime itself. Finally, drawing on and in agreement with Jonathan Ilin's work, I suggest that cultural criminology should routinely consider three levels both theoretically and methodologically: the macro (structural); the meso (cultural); and the micro (individual). The review concludes with examples that, if taken up in future research, would further widen cultural criminological interests, associations, and commitments to multidimensionality.