Сriminological Discourse: «Classics», Modernity, Prospects

Abstract

The authors use the widespread definition of discourse understood as the aggregate of statements regarding the objects of discourse. Obviously, the key object of discourse in criminology is criminality in all its manifestations and essential characteristics. In the process of discourse, the research topic of crime counteraction is developed, the criminal policy measures are worked out, the organizational forms and methodological support of law enforcement are improved, and various practices of crime counteraction are formed. A.E. Zhalinskiy, one of the pioneers in this sphere, believes that the independent significance of discourse in criminology lies in the fact that it mainly pays attention to the «process of working out judgments about crime». Thus, the main outcome of discourse is to reach some unity of positions on key analyzed problems. If we agree with this approach, such unity in criminology has already been achieved regarding the general concept of crime, which is connected with the Criminal Code and is not an object of discussion. The concept presented in the Code is prior to all discourses included in the criminal discourse. Such condition of scientific knowledge is characterized by the authors as «classical» by analogy with classical political economy. In our opinion, this «bias» for classics in contemporary criminology is the main reason for its lackluster methodological and theoretical works, as well as recommendations that are unproductive for the practice of crime counteraction. Developing their position, the authors use the concept of historic discourse worked out by M. Foucault. The discourse studied in the historical context is the process that forms the very objects of discourse. In the light of history, all objects, structures, general concepts become problematic and need re-defining. The authors believe that historical discourse turns science into an amorphous state characterized by the lack of a generalizing object. In this situation the participants of criminological discourse are not only representatives of the criminological mainstream, but also its outsiders who take an equal part in formulating the relevant discourse agenda. The authors of this article believe that the most important sources of discourse development are history, economic theory, sociology, political science, non-criminal law disciplines, various practices of crime counteraction. They expand the traditional borders of criminology regarding the development of interdisciplinary knowledge on crime, while the criminological classics act as an integrator of this knowledge.