Introduction
Zemiology is a counter-hegemonic approach which is drawn upon to challenge dominant knowledge paradigms. Moreover, it is a cutting edge emerging perspective which is still being developed. As such it allows for the broadening of the criminological imagination by considering what underpins assumptions, knowledge claims and taken for granted understandings. Zemiology has been defined as ‘the holistic study of the social, psychological, physical and financial harmful consequences of social phenomena’ (Naughton, 2003). In this regard zemiology or a social harm perspective goes beyond criminology, a claim which Smart supports, ‘the thing that criminology cannot do is deconstruct crime’ (1990). Therefore, zemiology is helpful in considering social phenomena, such as the prison system because it explores the social, political, economic context, together with the geographical and historical prevalence in which harms inclusive of crime is produced. In doing so, it paves the way for debate about crime and subsequent systems of punishment for example incarceration being a socially constructed phenomenon. Such contestation about legitimacy sheds light on hegemony, or Gramsci’s concept of ideological hegemony (1971). These concepts are used to explain how the shared ideas or beliefs which serve to justify the interest of the dominant groups (powerful elite) are disseminated into mainstream, populist constructions of criminal knowledge (Giddens, 1997). Therefore policy, media and political agenda all have a role to play in maintaining ideological hegemony. A zemiological approach will be applied to illustrate why the concept of crime when viewed alongside power creates profound inequality and harms within the prison system.
The contestation of crime itself
Scott’s article What is Crime? explored how the concept of crime can be viewed in terms of a legalistic perspective (2019a). He determined that crime is not universally agreed and is essentially a contested concept. Scott endeavoured to continue this line of inquiry by raising concerns about the notions of a criminal blame approach which is grounded in individual culpability. The critical criminological stance employed by Scott enables links to be drawn between contemporary, common sense crime knowledge claims. According to Gramsci the term ‘common sense’ denotes the creation and maintenance of particular uncritical taken for granted norms and values in society (1971). The concept of ideological hegemony helps to shed light on how these values such as what is defined as a crime and what is not defined as a crime reflect the powerful elites self-serving agenda, perpetuating the status quo of their domination (ibid). In addition, to providing links between crime constructions and the status quo, the criminological perspective utilised by Scott enables links to be drawn between crime and the tenets of positivism (2019). A positivist standpoint is entrenched in placing blame on individuals by locating scientific explanations in biological, psychological defective traits and in social theories. Scott’s article questions the very nature which underpins the concept of crime and therefore brings to the forefront the inequality of the prison system model as a form of punishment. A critical perspective as exampled by Scott lends itself to making visual harms which are also encompassed under perspective of zemiology.
Tracing the origins of the construction of criminological knowledge in the classical and positivist traditions
Harcourt’s (2013) paper Beccaria’s On Crimes and Punishments: A Mirror on the History of the Foundations of Modern Criminal Law details the excessive, brutal and arbitrary punishment practices inflicted upon individuals between the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. These practices of punishment were indicative of the medieval times. With this in mind the Enlightenment era and subsequent punishment reforms that have taken place from the eighteenth century, including the formalisation of incarceration and the penal prison system as punishment, can be deemed to be less harmful than being hung, drawn and quartered (Harcourt, 2013). However, the emerging work in the field of social harm evidences that harm manifests beyond physical pain, injury and trauma (Dorling, Gordon, Hillyard, Pantazis, Pembleton and Tombs, 2005). Zemiology encompasses a multitude of harm including: social, financial, economic, psychological and environmental factors to list but five (Open Learn, 2018). The ideas that underpin the criminological theories of classicism and positivism are vital in identifying how crime and prison system justice has been shaped from medieval times into contemporary societies. In essence, both classicism and positivism were underpinned by the assumptions, that essential to the rule of law was punishment because it formed part of a good justice system. Along with governmental reform came a move away from overtly severe physical harm associated with medieval norms and values. However, as mentioned, what constitutes crime and justice is constructed and therefore time and place specific.
The disproportionality and inequality of the prison population
According to the Global Prison Trends 2018 report, the trend of over-incarceration of people is seen on every continent. The global view on the state of prisons is one of overcrowding and degrading conditions in which people have to live. However, as the level of crime is decreasing, societies around the globe are disproportionately responding to unlawful behaviours with lengthy prison sentences (ibid). The Global Prison Trends 2018 states that the growth of the world prison population has exceeded the rate of general population growth since 2000. With this in mind the concept of governing through crime makes clearer the links between power and governmental strategies of crime control. Disproportionality and inequality expands across BAME minorities or what Williams conceives as ‘criminalising the other’ (Williams, 2015). In addition, Creshaw’s concept of intersectionality acknowledges the subjective experience of interrelated social divisions which exacerbate the layering of harms experienced within prison systems.
- “Woman and girls in prison worldwide increased by 53 per cent between 2000 and 2017”.
- “The proportion of elderly prisoners has continued to rise”.
- “LGBTI people continue to be arrested and imprisoned”.
- “An increase in the number of people with disabilities in prisons”.
The Global Prison Trends 2018 report determines that the drivers behind the increasing rates of imprisonment globally are linked to changes in criminal justice policies and practices as well as social, cultural and economic factors such as levels of inequality.
Juridification: net widening and the criminalisation of children
In over-regulated crime and justice societies the concept of juridification identified by Habermas (1989) as the increasing reach of the rule of the law in to everyday social life and interactions; it becomes apparent that this extending net widening has had far reaching intended and unintended consequences. In a video extract titled Why we should abolish imprisonment for children and young people Scott discusses the zemiology of harms of incarcerating children and young people (2019b). The imprisonment of children has been normalised into societies with little resistance. Bourdieu’s concept of habitus together with Singh-Manoux and Marmot’s notion of socialzation unmask how harmful societies neutralise such actions by embedding them through cultural and social norms (Eckersley, 2005). In contrast to the limitations of critical criminology which is entangled in discourse of crime and criminology, zemiology has advantages in that it recognises social problems and harms from an alternative and broader perspective. According to Scott children as young as thirteen are incarcerated within the prison system and have been handed down life sentences (2019b). In addition, once incarcerated these children can spend up to twenty-two hours a day in their cells. Moreover, the lack of life experiences on which to draw upon leaves them less able to manage suicidal and bleak thoughts. What Scott has demonstrated is a range of social harms resulting from the prison system model being utilised as the favoured mode of justice. Scott’s zemiological stance also illustrates what Dorling, Gordon, Hillyard, Pantazis, Pembleton and Tombs refer to as preventable socially mediated harms produced within contemporary harmful societies (2005).
Privatisation of the industrial prison complex
Going beyond the harms aforementioned of the prison system model, Marxism or the insights of Marx and Engels sought to illustrate how ideology, set around beliefs about the political and economic underpinnings of capitalism shape society. With this in mind, Drake and Scott’s work Holding the Corporation to Account? The Reclaim Justice Network, Shareholder Activism and the G4S AGM illustrates the harmful nature of capitalism through the privatisation of the industrial prison complex (2015). Drake and Scott concluded that the private and voluntary sectors have increasing influence workings on the criminal process. These sectors in effect are assumed the ‘right to punish’ on behalf of the government and as such manage and deliver ‘justice services’ (Drake and Scott, 2015). The emergence of the marketisation and privatisation of the ‘prison industrial complex’ is open to exploitation of vulnerable and impoverished people. Drake and Scott detail how billions of pounds are made on a global scale through incarceration and the prison system model (2015). However, as long as these companies meet their operational obligations they are allowed to profit from the operation of incarceration. In April 2019, the BBC announced that the government terminated private security firm G4S’s contract to manage HMP Birmingham (BBC, 2019). This followed and damning report which stated that the prison had fallen into a ‘state of crisis’ due to the appalling conditions the incarcerated were forced to live in (ibid).
Non-reformist reform of the industrial complex
Moore and Scott’s (2015b) work It’s not just about the profits: privatisation, social and enterprise and the ‘John Lewis’ prison has been drawn upon to deliberate further the helpfulness of zemiology in considering the prison system model. O’Brien determines that the prison’s role is one of a form of punishment but understands that it could be so much more (2011, cited in Moore and Scott, 2015b). Moore and Scott conclude that O’Brien’s bluepint model of a ‘community prison’ referred to in Transitions represents a reform of reform or ‘old wine in new bottles’ (2015b). Scott declares that O’Brien’s reformist approach at best, maintains zemiological harms within the prison system model, and at worst exacerbates these (2015a). In contrast, Scott argues that the notion of reformism in face of its successive failures is paradoxically non-reformist reform (Moore and Scott, 2015b).
Prisons don’t work
Dominant hegemonic ideology is reflected throughout society and permeates institutions, cultural ideas and social relationships which makes it difficult for counter-hegemonic ideology to filter through (Gramsci, 1971). However, contemporary constructions of crime and justice (punishment) are contested and challenged via alternative ideologies. A zemiological approach can be utilised to gather data which forms part of a wider counter-hegemonic resistance. In view of the gathered data which illustrates the social harms of the prison system, as details in the aforementioned literature, Scott’s article Our prison system is broken. Is it time to abolish prison altogether? poses an abolitionist real utopian question (2018a). Moreover, according to Scott a key element of real utopia is to provide rational alternatives to the prison system which he does in his article “The prospect of abolishing prisons entirely seems utopian. But to the abolitionist, clinging to reformism in face of its successive failures seems far more doomed and utopian” (Scott, 2018a). According to Scott building an abolitionist future starts with putting in the groundwork for a social justice society to exist. However, not all share Scott’s ‘here and now’ ground-up understanding of abolitionist real utopia. In contrast, an abolitionist real utopia vision geared more towards a holistic society which ‘is very much further in the future’ reveals how we understand the prison system as part of broader society as a whole. With this in mind critiques of Scott’s quest for emancipation challenge whether it is indeed is emancipatory or continues to serve and maintain the status quo.
Expansion versus Abolishment
Counter-hegemonic perspectives play an important role in societies and as societies evolve new 21st century counter-hegemonic practices and priorities have emerged. Scott’s article Prison abolition isn’t impossible. It’s necessary, challenges the contemporary prison system model (2018b). In producing this article Scott provides alternative meanings and resistance which challenges the status quo. Furthermore, social harm makes visible the unjust practices which take place within prisons and this knowledge is drawn upon as a basis of mobile resistance. This has taken the forms of action such as: protests, petitions and movements. Community Action on Prison Expansion (CAPE), a grassroots coalition of groups, have taken action in the form of a campaign which is calling for a year of action against prison expansion in 2019. This is a counter response to the government’s Prison Estates Transformation Programme plans to create 10,000 new prison places at a cost of £1,3 billion announced in March 2017 (CAPE, 2019 and Corporate Watch, 2018). In addition, other acts of resistance include the End Child Imprisonment campaign, a collaborative campaign run by a steering group, who are fighting for children’s rights (Rights 4 Children, 2019). Moreover, in June 2019, Burgon, Labour MP and Shadow Justice Secretary, during a House of Commons debate called upon the government to “halt their plans for a new generation of private prisons until an independent investigation has ensured corners aren't being cut to maximise private profit” (Burgon, 2019). Burgon had referred to new research which determined that private prisons, such as HMP Birmingham are more dangerous, cause more harms which are recognised through a zemiological perspective, than their public equivalents (2019).
The voices of those incarcerated must be heard
In contrast to conventional criminological perspectives which takes crime as defined by the criminal law as their focus or object of study, zemiologists focus on social harm more broadly. For this reason the method selected to generate findings according to Scott’s article Hearing voice and recognising privilege: Engaging in non-reciprocal dialogue must not inflict harm (2019c). Scott refers to the vital role of the act of speaking and the art of listening or the approach known as hearing voice known as ‘discourse ethics’. He endeavours to explain that zemiologists and abolitionists must be fully aware of ethical responsibility, irrespective of reciprocation (Scott, 2019c). Scott points out the importance of recognising privileged positions or “where the interests of the powerless are erased in appeasement of the claims of the powerful.” (Scott, 2019c). Scott makes visible the importance that zemiologists and abolitionists are working towards collective knowledge, and are not soloists, but are instead united in the understanding of their role as liberators of the oppressed. Scott details the significance of respectful and rigid adherence to the principles of discourse ethics in ensuring social harms are not inflicted though the generation of research (Scott, 2019c).
Alternatives to the prison system model
The concept of social harm and the emerging theoretical perspective known as zemiology has benefits because it makes visible how some harmful occurrences are crimes while others are not. This exploration of criminology social harm studies has been helpful in addressing the limitations of crime and punishment taking the form of incarceration within the prison system. An advantage of zemiology is that it is not restricted within the framework of crime and criminal justice. Therefore a social harm approach lends itself to be employed to consider alternatives to the prison system model. Scott and Gosling’s paper (2016) Before Prison, Instead of Prison, Better Than Prison: Therapeutic Communities as an Abolitionist Real Utopia? allows for the evaluation of radical alternatives to the harmful socially mediated nature of incarceration (2016). Therapeutic Communities were discussed as an alternative option to incarceration for substance users. This alternative would have been offered as part of the abolitionist real utopia framework (Scott and Gosling, 2016). On the one hand the application of a social harm approach could clearly see the benefits of this alternative. On the other hand a social harm approach recognises that substance users have their own life experiences and with this in mind wider social inequalities must also remain part of the focus (Scott and Gosling, 2016).
Conclusion
In summary, a methodical review has demonstrated how a zemiological approach was helpful in considering the prison system model. In addition to this, a range of media outlets was sourced together with the latest updates to base the review as much as possible within a real-world context. Although it is clear that zemiology is becoming grounded and recognised as a theoretical perspective in its own right it can also be considered as a strand of critical criminology. Zemiology goes beyond critical criminology and has a differing focus, but just like critical criminology it is utilised to challenge more conventional criminological perspectives for example legalistic perspectives. Zemiology is also a counter-hegemonic approach and therefore its literature contributes to dual emerging fields. The critiquing material chosen was useful because of their relevance, current nature, quality, methods employed and academic rigour.
References
BBC News. (2019) HMP Birmingham: G4S loses permanent contract [Online]. Available at
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-47776010 (Accessed 8th June 2019)
Burgon, R. (2019) New research shows private prison are more dangerous than their public equivalents
https://twitter.com/RichardBurgon (Accessed 8th June 2019)
Community Action on Prison Expansion. (2019) 2019 Year of action against prison expansion
[Online]. Available at https://cape-campaign.org/yearofaction/ Accessed 8th June 2019)
Corporate Watch. (2018) Treasury commits to funding new mega-prisons
[Online]. Available at https://corporatewatch.org/treasury-commits-to-funding-new-mega-prisons/ (Accessed 8th June 2019)
Dorling, D. Gordon, D. Hillyard, P. Pantazis, C. Pemberton, S. and Tomb, S (2005) Criminal obsessions: Why harm matters more than crime’ Centre for Crime and Justice Studies [Online]. Available at http://www.dannydorling.org/wp-content/files/dannydorling_publication_id1047.pdf
(Accessed 7th June 2019)
Drake, D, H. and Scott, D. (2015) Holding the Corporation to Account? The Reclaim Justice Network, Shareholder Activism and the G4S AGM’ DD804 Week 24: Zemiology and human trafficking [Online]. Available at http://www.egpress.org/Deborah-H-Drake-and-David-Scott-Holding-the-Corporation-toAccount
(Accessed 8th June 2019)
Eckersley, R. (2005) ‘Is modern Western culture a health hazard?' International Journal of Epidemiology, (2017) Oxford University Press [Online]. Available at https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/35/2/252/694666 (Accessed 7th June 2019)
Global Prison Trends 2018 Thailand Institute of Justice and Penal Reform International
https://cdn.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/PRI_Global-Prison-Trends-2018_EN_WEB.pdf
(Accessed 7th June 2019)
Giddens, A. (1997) Sociology, Cambridge, Polity Press.
Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks (Hoare, Q. and Nowell Smith, G., eds. and trans.), London, Lawrence and Wishart/New York, International Publishers.
Habermas, J. (1989) A theory of communicative Action, vol 2, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Harcourt, B, E. (2013) "Beccaria's 'On Crimes and Punishments': A Mirror on the History of the Foundations of Modern Criminal Law" (Coase-Sandor Institute for Law & Economics Working Paper No. 648, 2013) [Online]. Available at
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1633&context=law_and_economics (Accessed 7th June 2019)
Moore, J, M. and Scott, D (2012) It's not just about the profits: privatisation, social enterprise and the ‘John Lewis’ prison, Criminal Justice Matters, 87:1, 42-43, [Online]. Available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09627251.2012.671021 (Accessed 8th June 2019)
Naughton, M. (2003) ‘How big is the “iceberg”? A zemiological approach to quantifying miscarriages of justice’, Radical Statistics, iss. 81, pp. 5–17.
Open Learn (1999 – 2018) ‘Social Harm’ Criminology beyond crime [Online]. Available at https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/criminology-beyond-crime/content-section-3 (Accessed 7th June 2019)
Rights 4 Children. (2019) End Child Imprisonment [Online]. Available at https://article39.org.uk/endchildimprisonment/
(Assessed 8th June 2019)
Scott, D. (2018a) Our prison system is broken. Is it time to abolish prisons altogether? [Online]. Available at
https://www.redpepper.org.uk/our-prison-system-is-broken-is-it-time-to-abolish-prisons-altogether/ (Assessed 8th June 2019)
Scott, D. (2018b) Prison abolition isn’t impossible. It’s necessary. [Online]. Available at
https://www.redpepper.org.uk/prison-abolition-isnt-impossible-its-necessary/ (Assessed 8th June 2019)
Scott, D. (2019a) What is crime? OpenLearn [Online]. Available at https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/criminology/what-crime
(Assessed 7th June 2019)
Scott, D. (2019b) Why we should abolish imprisonment OpenLearn [Online]. Available at
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/criminology/why-we-should-abolish-imprisonment-children-and-young-people
(Assessed 7th June 2019)
Scott, D. (2019c) Hearing voice and recognising privilege: engaging in non-reciprocal dialogue [Online]. Available at
https://oucriminology.wordpress.com/2019/03/11/hearing-voice-and-recognising-privilege-engaging-in-non-reciprocal-dialogue/
(Assessed 8th June 2019)
Scott, D. and Gosling, H. (2016) Before prison, instead of prison, better than prison: Therapeutic communities as an abolitionist real utopia. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy [Online]. Available at
file:///C:/Users/Hp%20Elite%208000/Downloads/791-Article%20Text-1867-3-10-20180912%20(1).pdf (Accessed 8th June 2019)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Please cite this article as: S. Hartles (2019) Prisons Don't Work! A zemiological approach [Online] Available at
https://sharonhartles.weebly.com/prisons-dont-work-a-zemiological-approach.html (Accessed)
https://sharonhartles.weebly.com/prisons-dont-work-a-zemiological-approach.html (Accessed)
ATTRIBUTION
All works are Open Access articles distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original works are properly cited.
© Sharon Hartles 2022.
All works are Open Access articles distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original works are properly cited.
© Sharon Hartles 2022.