The word anarchy comes from the Greek αναρχία (anarchíā), meaning “without ruler.” It calls for a society without a ruler rather than without order. Anarchy often exists where there is no central authority that has the ability to rule over the people. An anarchist is often a person who wants no central authority to control them. Anarchism is a social movement that seeks liberation from oppressive systems of control including the state, capitalism, racism, sexism and religion. Anarchists advocate a self-managed, classless, stateless society without borders, bosses, or rulers where everyone takes collective responsibility for the health and prosperity of themselves and the environment. When used in criminology, anarchism is a theory with directly opposes authority. Some of the main classical anarchist thinkers are Peter Kropotkin, Murray Bookchin, Michael Bakunin and Emma Goldman. (Philosophynow.org, 2017). Kropotkin cam be seen to have influenced more contemporary anarchist theorists such as Jeff Ferrel, Stanley Cohen and Larry Tift. In a 1983 documentary ‘Anarchism in America’ the social theorist Murray Bookchin asserted that a person may consider themselves an anarchist if they believe that society could be managed without the state. Bookchin also stated that Anarchists believe that people or groups should directly run society. This describes the most fundamental tenet of anarchism, which is a rejection of the state. (Anarchy in America, 1983)
Anarchism is a conflict theory; conflict theories are about inequality in society and proposes that laws and norms reflect the interests of more powerful people in society. Social order is maintained through conflict and those with the most economic and social resources benefit by taking advantage of the less powerful. (Study.com, 2013) Anarchist criminologies share the understanding of the law of an expression of state power but they critique the state further than most conflict theories. Anarchism has similarities to Marxism theory because they are both conflict theories that were developed during the industrial revolution. The thinkers in both theories are against capitalism, their aim is to not reform capitalism but to eliminate it completely. They believe that capitalism is a system which exploits and oppresses people in society, mainly working-class people. Both Anarchists and Marxists believe that the task of the oppressed people is to release themselves from control rather than to reform capitalism into something fairer. Both also aim to create a classless, more equal, stateless society which is based on mutual co-operation and does not oppress its people. (WorkersCompass.org, Published by Workers Action, 2016)
Both theories have critiqued functionalist and positivist theories of society. Marxists and Anarchists point out that functionalism theories focus too much on the positive acts of institutions and ignore the negative ways that they treat people in society. Right realism is also criticised by Marxists and Anarchists because it ignores corporate crime and focuses on the crimes committed by the lower-class people in society, Anarchists say that this is helping the oppress the working people by not basing theories on the higher classes.
Some of the differences between Anarchism and Marxism are based on how to achieve the classless, stateless society. In Anarchist theories classes exist because of the state, they believe that after the state is abolished it will be possible to build an equal society. However, in Marxism the state was developed as a result of class conflict and assured the rise of the powerful classes. The development of different classes was the cause of the creation of the unequal state. The main differences between the two theories is what happens after the abolishment of capitalism, for Anarchists there is no perspective on what is necessary after their victory but Marxists have developed theories on what must happen to create the equal classless state. Marxists believe that there will still need to be a state until there is no more struggle to fulfil individual material need. Anarchists oppose the formation of any kind of state temporary or otherwise because a state is by definition repressive. Also Anarchists do not support the development if any party and theorists such as Bakunin (1864) advocated the building of secret revolutionary societies of a few hundred people that would live among the people and, once they went into action, the revolutionary societies would support their revolution. (WorkersCompass.org, Published by Workers Action, 2016)
Cultural criminologists such as Jeff Ferrell, Mike Davis and Roy Coleman all share concerns for the privatisation of public spaces, urban crime control projects and the struggles for public space. Cultural criminology is the approach to the investigation of crime that its criminality and its control are based in the context of culture. This means, that institutions of crime control, and crime by itself are seen as products of culture. Jeff Ferrell believes that public spaces are becoming less free for anyone in society to use and starting to be controlled by the state. One example Ferrell has given is anti-trespassing signs, he believes that these signs are in public places to control the working people and to prevent them from having freedom. Ferrell saw that when cultural and criminal processes come together, essential issues of power and control come into question.
Mutual aid is a guiding factor behind all anarchist practices and an essential framework for understanding the views of Anarchists. In its simplest form mutual aid means cooperation for the common good. For Anarchists it means to resist the control dynamics, hierarchies and oppressive arrangement of charity organisations whilst still giving each other needed material support. Mutual aid projects are a form of anti-control participation in which people take responsibility for each other and building new social relations without oppressive control. Anarchists views state that charity is a framework in which higher class people give lower class people a little bit of support to make themselves look better, always with strings attached so therefore charity is a way of controlling the lower classes because they come to rely on this ‘charity’. (Bigdoorbrigade.com, 2019)
In 1892 Kropotkin wrote a book ‘The conquest of Bread’, in this book he proposed a system of economics based on the mutual exchanges in a system of voluntary cooperation. Kropotkin had created a system of mutual aid which could make sure that everyone benefited and made sure that people knew it was voluntary which broke away from capitalist oppression. According to Kirkpatrick Sale (1990), Kropotkin was able to move away from the limitations of individual anarchism and provide a vision of communal anarchism following his development of mutual aid. It was a new style of anarchism which opposed central government and laws but understood that communities could work and provide material life without a central control. (The Anarchist Library, n.d.)
A recent, contemporary event which highlights the Anarchist views is that of the Grenfell Tower fire. Anarchists, both involved in the Grenfell fire and not, have blamed capitalism for the events that occurred on the 14th June 2017. Many believe that capitalism has failed to provide decent housing for working people for many years, they say tragedies such as the Grenfell are the result. Grenfell tower is a short distance away from million-pound houses many of which stay empty for the wealthier in society. Anarchists believe this is the brutality of capitalism; working people are in small houses where tragedies can happen whereas the capitalist class enjoy luxury. (Attard and Southwark, 2017) This incident highlighted the views of many Anarchists in the world because it was shown in the media that the working people had frequently reported the fire hazards and yet the capitalist people who had the power to make changes did not do anything to help. This could be argued as a reason why there should be a classless, stateless society.
Abolitionism is a type of criminology which refers to the abolishment of the state institutions which are no longer felt to be needed. Historically speaking the criminology has been used in the war against slavery, torture, prostitution, capital punishment and prison. In criminology, it refers to the attempt to get rid of the punitive responses to crime. Abolitionists do not want rid of the police or courts they just want new responses to crime that are not punitive. Abolitionists believe that crime is no different from other social problems and separating criminals from other people does not solve the problem. Instead their view is that crime problems should be treated in the context which they emerged from and should be more towards reintegration into society than exclusion from it. Abolitionists do not share the complete view of Anarchists, they do not believe in the rejection of the state, only that the penal system can often amplify the problems rather than ease them. Penal Abolitionists argue that the practice of imprisoning people can uphold a dominant construction of criminality which does not solve the social problems of society. The views of abolitionists can vary throughout cultures but they combine the critique of penal systems, crime and a radical approach to penal reform. The central strategies of abolition are depenalisation and decriminalisation. Depenalisation is changing the way crime is dealt with in society, taking the punitive reaction out of the way criminals are treated.
Decriminalisation means that they are against the labelling of social problems as crimes. A further aim of abolition is related to the constitution of moral discourse. In more western, neo-liberal societies some values such as care and empathy are excluded from the public and political ethics. These are mainly dominated by masculine notions such as rights, duties and respect. (Libertarianism.org, 2019)
in 1991 William de Haan wrote ‘Abolitionism and crime control: a contradiction in terms. In this de Haan said, ‘abolitionists do not share the current belief in the criminal law’s capacity for crime control’. Abolitionists do believe that there is no valid justification for punishment and that there are other options available. (De Haan, W. 1991) Abolitionism argues for a more structured approach to the prevention of social negativity by taking social problems seriously but not seeing them as a crime. Abolitionists like Thomas Mathiesen have argued for a non-retributive alternative to the current system of criminal justice. Mathiesen concluded his assessment of the prison systems by saying ‘the prison is a fiasco in terms of its own purposes’. (Mathiesen 1990: 137)
De Haan proposes a reconceptualization of crimes as social problems which are normal in human societies. He states that punishment has the aim of compensation rather than retaliation. One argument he does not support is that the abandonment of law can offer protection from unfairness. (p.212) The suggestion that pain inflicted as a punishment can compensate for pain inflicted by crime is one that De Haan dismisses. He says that ‘Rather, crime and punishment should be understood as interrelated sources of ‘social negativity’, which generate ‘spiralling cycles of harm’ (p.210) (De Haan, W. 1991)
In 1998 Stan Cohen identified five ‘destructuring moves’ which are part of the politics of abolition: decarceration (away from prison); diversion (away from the institution), decategorization (away from offender typologies), delegalization (away from the state) and deprofessionalization (away from the expert). (Cohen 1998). During the 1980s, more attention was on the positives and negatives of non-custodial practices as alternatives to prisons. (McLaughlin, 2013)
Peacemaking criminology emerged around 15 years ago following the publication of Harold Pepinsky and Richard Quinney’s edited reader titled Criminology as Peacemaking (1991). In the Introduction (p.6) they state,
“in recent years there have been proposals and programs that foster mediation, conflict resolution, reconciliation and community. They are part of an emerging criminology that seeks to alleviate suffering and reduce crime.”
According to Pepinsky and Quinney peacemaking criminology is a process of peacefully preventing and responding to crime and deviant behaviours. Instead of being based on retribution and punishment, peacemaking criminology is based on principles from religious, humanist, critical and feminist traditions. The argument presented by Pepinsky is that the criminal justice system is predicated on the continuance of violence and oppression. It is also based on the failure to account for how the social problems contribute to the problem of crime. (Pepinsky 1991)
In criminology there has been a distinction made between positive peace (freedom from oppression) and negative peace (absence of conflict and violence). For positive peace to exists in society, the sources of deviance and violence must be eliminated such as racism, sexism and inequality. (Barack,2003) For peace to really exist there must be a sense of social trust and social safety throughout society, Anarchists believe that this will only happen when there is no one is control. Peacemaking criminology is an alternative approach to crime that supports nonviolent, socially just methods for dealing with deviant behaviour. It has the opposite view to the war on crime model that seeks control through intimidation and violence. Peacemaking is viewed as a radical departure from the war making model. Supporters of the peacemaking criminology view it as a solution for crime and social ills such as racism and sexism. Some critics have stated that it is naïve and soft on deviant behaviour. (C. Barnes, n.d.) Peacemaking criminology show similarities to the principles of Anarchism because they both believe that crime is connected to suffering and that by ending crime, suffering will also be ended. Anarchists believe that the poorer classes are suffering and committing crimes due to capitalism and the higher classes whereas in peacemaking criminology suffering it considered a problem for all people not specified by class. (Barak, 2005)
In 1989 John Braithwaite gave an account of why restorative justice processes should prevent crime more effectively than retributive practices. He states that being tolerant of crime only makes crime worse, that out casting of criminals makes crime worse still and that reintegrative shaming or disapproval of the act prevents crime more effectively. Peacemaking criminologists claim that punishing criminals only escalates the violence, instead criminologists advocate restorative justice practices instead. Restorative justice is a system of mediation and conflict resolution that is more effective. (Braithwaite, 2003)
Criminologist Howard Zehr wrote that restorative justice is based on a common sense of wrongdoing. he wrote that crime is a violation of people and of interpersonal relationships, violations create obligation and that the central obligation is to put right the wrongs. (Zehr, 1990). There are similarities to Anarchism in the principles of restorative justice, criminologists from both theories believe that harm creates needs and responsibilities. Restorative justice is tested by the extent to which the responsibilities are followed, the needs are all met and a solution is encouraged. Absent from these principles is the need for any central authority, this is down to Anarchists believing that no authority is needed to come to a solution. Zehr states he is not aware of any criminal justice system which is controlled by a central authority that puts attention on the needs of the victim(s), the systems target only the offender. (Zehr, 2015)
An excellent example of restorative justice principles in practice, is the system in New Zealand. In New Zealand, nearly all of their young offender cases are put through the restorative justice system. It is the only country to have changed the system into a restorative justice system. Since is began in 1989, the system has worked well and other large countries are yet to make changes. The New Zealand restorative justice juvenile system has inspired new approaches in the adult system resulting in less reliance on prisons and better conclusions for victims. However, Peter Kletsan has written a journal article which asks the question ‘Is Restorative Justice “Anarchist Criminology”’. in this article he writes that Coy McKinney has given a compelling argument that restorative justice is still anarchist criminology although it is controlled by a central authority. McKinney argues that part if the authority’s legitimacy is due to the compliancy of offenders and victims, if they were to withdraw then the states power would be undermined. To withdraw consent from the state is the principle recourse which Anarchists have against it. (Kletsan, 2017)
In conclusion, Anarchist principles are evident in many different theories of criminology. The principles of restorative justice and the principles of anarchist criminology are similar if not completely identical. There have been many criticisms of anarchism, one of these is that if society became an anarchist society, lacking any central authority, society would quickly become a violent and chaotic place to live. (Engels. F. 1872). One of the most well-known criticisms of anarchism was by Karl Marx during arguments with Mikhail Bakunin and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Marx said that the anarchists believed that the states government supported capitalism rather than the other way around. He said this meant they were attacking the wrong target and that government will not collapse if capitalism and state were to be ended. (Marx. K. 1870)
Anarchists believe that the future will be a community who believe in cooperation rather than competition. They believe that to control crime in the future competition must be eliminated, they want society to be a community of free individuals who cooperate to achieve a quality of life greater than they could achieve separately. Crime control in an anarchist society would be a lot easier to maintain because they would have all vices legalised and only enjoyed by those who chose to participate, there would be no claims system because nothing can be owed as that is capitalism. (The Anarchist Library, 2017) In conclusion an anarchist society would be without state control and have a new system for crime control. Whether or not it could work is yet to be confirmed.
2019-1-16-1547640561