Since 1970 the outlook of historians changed regarding crime, they turned away from traditional areas of research such as, war, diplomacy, politics, state formation etc… and focused on social history. The area of Social history or history from below refer to lives of working class, their everyday survival and political struggle. Social history centered crime research Historians were influenced from Marxist perspective. They were mainly interested in determining the impact of capitalism on individuals’ lives.
Social History or History From Below
Male workers were specifically subjects of research because they are considered the main victims of capitalism. According to this outlook in capitalism male workers are being exploited by rich for their personal gain which lead to radicalization and poverty among working class. E.P Thompson and Peter Linebaugh many influential studies on labor class males who were prosecuted for social crimes. These prosecutions were for the crimes which were legal in traditional society and aided labors to put more food on their table such as, cultivating food on private property became crime (trespassing) — Similarly, collecting left over from harvest as well as small scale hunting became crime (theft) for which males of working class was prosecuted. Other people were prosecuted for political crimes such as, protests and establishment of associations. These protests and associations were organized and created by people to claim customary rights. These studies on social crimes prosecution suggest that change in social structure from traditional to modern is correlated with criminalization of the poor class.
Moreover, ordinary people believed that social crimes such as these are justifiable. According to this outlook on crime police were considered as traitors because they themselves belong to working class but work to promote the agenda of elites — social criminals are viewed as conscious or unconscious rebels and courts are the instruments used for the oppression working class. However, the crime research approach of social history received a lot of criticism from other outlook historians.
This approach class and crime remain on top until 1980 after that it began to change. Social history was criticized by historian on three different levels. Firstly, crime do exist in pre-modern societies it is not just a product of modern society. Secondly, social conduct of individuals hold different meanings in distinct cultures therefore, researchers could not analyze crime by only associating it with economic inequalities other social issues such as, race, sensation, science etc… also have impact on the social phenomenon. Lastly, gender and family historians have identified crimes which could not be associated with capitalist oppression of men these include, domestic violence and child abuse. These critiques paved a way for new outlook on historic studies, these studies were focused on analyzing “Construction of Criminal Masculinity”.
Construction of Criminal Masculinity
A key claim of this outlook is that western societies became intolerant of everyday violence perpetrated by male such as, interpersonal violence, assault etc… these act of violence were not even prosecuted in early eighteen century however, in early ninetieth century severe punishments were imposed on such criminal actions including, large fines, imprisonment and even death sentence. Intolerance of male violence can be justified through analyzing the criminalization of male behaviors that was acceptable in traditional societies for instance, bare knuckle duel fights and wife beating were acceptable behavior for male in per-modern Europe however, traditionally acceptable male social conducts such as these were declared as criminal actions in modern Europe law, which express the intolerance of European societies toward male violence. This development is associated to the social divisions, respectable people left rough communities, and elites moved from ordinary communities, public places were separated from private properties and new police force was introduced in 1830 in order to control unruly working class areas as well as to sustain peace and order within society (Wiener 1998). Eisner claimed that, long term decline in homicide rates from 16th century to early 20th century is unbalanced decline in male to male conflict in public places and drop in elite homicide. Whereas, feminist and gender historians identified that, women (especially young girls) and children experience rape, domestic violence, assault and incest as well as analyzed how man perpetrated violence could be prevented or challenged (Clark 1987).
Despite the intolerance regarding male perpetrated violence it occurred in everyday life such as, 19th century skirmishes between hooligans and gangs on public holidays as well as, 20th century clashes among young males on the basis of subcultures (S. Cohen and Jefferson). Generally, in some cultures violence among young men in school, college, pubs and playgrounds are considered usual phenomenon. These argument and studies does not infer that, crime and violence are static in nature and part of masculinity. However, in 1500 men categorized and defined violence themselves as masculine conducts. These historical studies on crime suggest that, violence played an important role in construction of masculinity which led to the prosecution of young men and informal policing.
Written by; Khushdil Khan Kasi