CRIME, SOCIAL EXCLUSION, AND ECONOMIC SYSTEM

FROM MARX TO FOUCAULT

By

Fotis M. Kantartzis

A Master’s Dissertation
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of
Master of Science in Criminology and Criminal Justice

MSc of Loughborough University

October, 2007
Loughborough, United Kingdom

© by Fotis M. Kantartzis 2007

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract......................................................................................................................................ii

Acknowledgments.....................................................................................................................iii

Table of contents……………………………………………………………………………iv-v

List of figures ...................................................................................................…………...vi-vii

Chapter I: Introduction………………………………………………………………….…...1-5
I. Introduction……………………………………………………………………….…....1-5

Chapter II: Methodological Context……………………………………………………….6-17

I. Introduction………………………………………………………….…….......................6
II. Theory and research…………………………………………………….......................6-8
III. Deductive approach…………………………………………………………………..8-9
IV. Epistemological considerations……………………………………………………….10
V. Ontological considerations………………………………………………….………11-13
VI. Research strategy: quantitative research…………………………………………...14-16
VII. Research design: comparative design…………………………………………….......17

Chapter III: The State…......................................................................................................18-42

I. Introduction………………………………………………………………………...18-22
II. The essentials of the Marxist theory of the State…………………...……………..23-25
III. The State………………………………………………………………………….25-26
IV. State Power……………………………………………………………......................27
V. The State Apparatus………………………………………………….....................28-29
VI. On the reproduction of the conditions of production…………………………….30-31
VII. On Ideology……………………………………………………………………...32-36
VIII. On Education…………………………………………………………………...37-38
IX. Concluding comments……………………………………………………….…...39-42

Chapter IV: Power……………………….……………………………...……………...…43-56

I. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………....43
II. Knowledge………………………………………………………………………...44-46
III. Power……………………………………………………………………………..47-50
IV. Disciplinary society………………………………………………………………51-56

Chapter V: The Individual……………………………………………………………..….57-66

I. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..57
II. The Nature Of Symbolic Interactionism………………………………………………58
III. The Play, The Game, And The Generalised Other…………………………..……58-59
IV. The “I” And The “Me”……………………………………………………………….60
V. Role-Taking……………………………………………………………………………61
VI. Labelling Theory……………………………………………………………………...62
VII. Outsiders…………………………………………………………………………63-66

2
Chapter VI: Data Analysis………………………………………………………………...67-85
I. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………67-69
II. Secondary Analysis and Official Statistics………………………………………….…70
III. Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………...71-85

Chapter VII: Conclusion…………………………………………………………………..86-89

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………90-95

LIST OF FIGURES

3
Figure Page

Figure 2.1: The process of deduction………………………………………………...………...9

Figure 2.2: Quantitative research strategy……………………………………………….…...14

Figure 2.3: The process of quantitative research……………………………………………..15

Figure 3.1: The structure of society………………………………………………..................23

Figure 3.2: The State…………………………………………………………………….……26

Figure 3.3: The reproduction of the conditions of production……………………………......30

Figure 4.1: Foucault's triangle of power……………………………………………...............49

Figure 6.1: Diagram of social exclusion process……………………………………………..71

Figure 6.2 World distribution of wealth in the year 2000 by region…………………………72

Figure 6.3 Regional wealth shares (%)…………………………………………….…………72

Figure 6.4 World wealth levels in year 2000…………………………………………………72

Figure 6.5 Population and wealth shares by region………………………………….……….73

Figure 6.6 Percentage membership of wealthiest (10%)…………………………………..…73

Figure 6.7 Percentage membership of wealthiest (1%)…………………………………...….73

Figure 6.8 The ‘global’ Gini coefficient for decile/quintile incomes……………………..….74

Figure 6.9 Inequality in income or expenditure…………………………………………..…..75

Figure 6.10 Trends in inequality across nations and over time………………………………75

Figure 6.11 Inequality trends over the last two decades in the United Kingdom…………….75

Figure 6.12: Net worth and financial wealth distribution in the U.S. in 2001………………..76

Figure 6.13: Wealth distribution by type of asset, 2001: investment assets……………….....76

Figure 6.14: Median net worth by ethnicity and race, 2000……………………………….....76

Figure 6.15: Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States, 1922-
1998…………………………………………………………………………………………..76

Figure 6.16 Share of capital income earned by top 1% and bottom 80%, 1979-2003……….77

4
Figure 6.17 Share of the wealth in the United Kingdom in 2006…………………………….77

Figure 6.18 Distribution of Wealth and Income by Percentage…………………………...….77

Figure 6.19 America’s class distribution……………………………………………………..78

Figure 6.20 Thompson, W. & Hickey, J social class model………………………………….78

Figure 6.21 Social classes in the United States…………………………………………….…78

Figure 6.22 Average wages…………………………………………………………………...79

Figure 6.23 Poor living conditions by income…………………………………………..……79

Figure 6.24 Permanent exclusion rates by ethnic group……………………………...………79

Figure 6.25 Status dropout rates of 16- through 24-year-olds, by race/ethnicity: October 1972
through October 2004………………………………………………………………………...80

Figure 6.26 Prevalence of mental disease by household income……………………………..80

Figure 6. 27 United States Crime Stats……………………………………………………….81

Figure 6.28 United Kingdom Crime Stats………………………………………………..…..81

Figure 6.29 Greek Crime Stats………………………………………………………………..82

Figure 6.30 Type of offence in U.K…………………………………………………………..82

Figure 6.31 Type of offence in U.S.A………………………………………………….…..…82

Figure 6.32 World Prison Population List………………………………………………....…83

Figure 6.33 Number of sentenced prisoners by age, gender, and race……………….……....84

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

5
 To my family, without them there would have been no critical thinking. Thank you for
stimulating me, helping me, and supporting me all these years to realize my studies by sacrificing
yourselves.

I am grateful for suggestions, comments, and contributions from my Professor Dr Mike

Stephens, without his assistance this work would not be possible. Thank you for instructing and
encouraging me during the year.

I am also indebted to the many individuals whose generous efforts were critical to the
completion of this project.

Lastly, my greatest debt is to those whose constant stimulation and encouragement

spurred me to philosophical speculation and sociological reflection.

ABSTRACT

6
 CRIME, SOCIAL EXCLUSION, AND ECONOMIC SYSTEM
FROM MARX TO FOUCAULT

The present work is concerned with the issue of criminality in the context of
modern industrial and technological economic system, in capitalism. The subject-matter
of this thesis is to examine the social phenomenon of criminality and the relatively
contemporary phenomenon of incarceration in terms of social and economic variables.
Practically, the methodological objective of this project is a multi-dimensional reading of
the issue of criminality and a many-sided presentation of the social factors and causes
which are deep-rooted in the structure of capitalism and which are responsible for the
unprecedented expansion of crime and the generalisation of discipline and punishment in
the age of capital. The methodological scheme of this thesis is concentrated in four main
axes. The first methodological objective is to develop the theses of the Marxist tradition
as regards the structure of capitalist society and its relation to crime. That is, the state and
its powers and apparatuses as means in the hands of bourgeoisie in the struggle conducted
for proletariat exploitation. This chapter deals with how the state and its powers in the
modern capitalist-bourgeois societies form the justice system in such a way as to exclude
a certain class (proletariat) or a certain number of people (lumpen proletariat) from
society. How the law is the mechanism by which the bourgeois class keeps the proletariat
class in a disadvantaged position. How in the last analysis the role of justice system,
educational system, law, punishment, prison, police, are all institutions (repressive and
ideological state apparatuses) which seem to have nothing in common with the state and
political power, which seem to be independent, but which actually aren’t. The second
methodological objective is to present a Foucaudian viewpoint as regards the issue of
power-knowledge in the context of the modern bourgeois disciplinary society which aims
at the control and subjugation of the individuals. This chapter deals with the domains of
power in which the construction of the individual as an object is realized, i.e. the
objectification and subjugation of the individual on the one hand and the
individualization of the subject on the other. The object is to demonstrate -through a
historical analysis of the development of repressive institutions- how the individual in the
modern industrial-bourgeois society is caught in a complex network of disciplinary
institutions which aimed at the subjugation of his mind, body, and time with the

7
uppermost object the extraction of his productiveness and the placement of this at the
disposal of the labour market and the demands of production. This practically means that
the individuals are caught in a complex network of institutions which aimed at correcting,
normalizing, training, and reforming the individual’s behaviour and binding lastly that
docile body to production apparatus. The third methodological objective deals with the
issue of deviance from the standpoint of social behaviourism and symbolic interactionism
(Chicago School). Symbolic interactionism is concerned with how the individual’s self
arises out of social interaction and labelling theory with how the individual’s self-identity
and behaviour are created on the basis that the individual is categorized and described by
others in society. The fourth methodological objective is a research study-comparative
design between U.S.A, U.K and Greece through a data analysis. Crime and prison official
date are compared and contrasted in order to support our hypothesis that the more
advanced capitalist is one country, the more the social and economic exclusion and
therefore a part of society the so-called lower-class is more likely to be marginalised, to
turned to crime as a means for survival and rebellion and to led finally to imprisonment
through a number of state apparatuses. Despite that the elaboration of these theoretical
traditions may seem somewhat paradox -due to their contradictory character, or even
better, the methodological way through which they attempt to interpret social
phenomena-, however, this fact may allows us to examine the issue of crime from a
variety of standpoints and therefore to fill the theoretical gap between society and
individual. It is more important to keep in mind that all these theoretical traditions have
been formulated and developed in the age of capitalism and as such have as their basis
the direct or indirect effects of capitalism over the social and individual factors which in
the last analysis lead an individual or a class to crime.

Key words: crime, deviance, social exclusion, capitalism, state, power, bourgeoisie,
proletariat

8
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

“My analytical method does not start from man but from the economically given social period”
Karl Marx, Randglossed zur Wagners Lehrbuch…, 1879-80 cited in Louis Althusser,
For Marx, 1969:219

I. INTRODUCTION

It was not before the appearance and the prevalence of the spirit of capitalism until a

socio-economic chasm divided the society into classes. We are referring of course to that age

where a gigantic socio-economic shift -which formed at the beginning of the 19 h century and even

afterward- named capitalism, changed totally at that time traditional world. Undoubtedly, that

social change came about for the benefit of a part of society, the so-called bourgeoisie, but sure

brought the catastrophe for the rest, the proletariat. It is interesting to note that the concept of

class society, in strict terms, firstly appeared in such form in the context of Western capitalist

societies. This is neither to say that primitive and feudalistic societies were socially equally-

divided, nor that social wealth was equally distributed, since elements of hierarchy and social

status can be traced back to pre-industrialised societies (e.g. castes). However, what is of

particular importance to analyse is the socio-economic way whereby Western societies on the

basis of the division of labour have been divided into distinct classes. The term socio-economic

refers here to the division of labour and the mode of production in terms of the economic aspect,

as well as a number of political, legal, ideological, religious, and educational factors in terms of

the social aspect, which severally and jointly construct the social class formation. That is, the

class society.

9
 Capitalism, as that socio-economic system which is primarily based on the concept

“owners and non-owners”, firstly appeared in the Western world and brought an utterly new

economic reality which was directly related with the accumulation of wealth. Of course, there

were a number of social factors and economic conditions which paved the way and pushed the

procedures toward the capitalist phenomenon. In fact, the birth of capitalism was derived from a

new economic philosophy which developed in the course of the 18 th and 19th century and was

based on an utterly new economic perception about society, i.e. the spirit of capitalism (Weber,

1992 pp 8). This capitalist spirit and economic philosophy -on which Western societies

developed- were formulated on the basis of utilitarianism, maximisation and accumulation of

wealth, minimisation of expenses and damages, transformation of creative labour into wage-

labour and surplus-value, transformation of body into labour power, reduction of man-hour into

quantity value, exploitation of human and natural resources to the greater possible extend,

valorisation of the individual’s body according to the market economy and production, and lastly

a wider evaluation of human nature and social life into monetary value. In short, it was the age

where everything had a price. What characterises capitalism compared to other socio-economical

formations then is the maximum extraction of labour-time, the unprecedented intensiveness and

discipline of labour, the unapprehensible discipline of man, and the emergence of a severe

ideological and religious apparatus which sought the subjugation of bodies and minds with the

uppermost object to extract their productiveness (Weber, 1992 pp 9).

Of course, such social upheavals it is reasonable to led gradually to the deprivation of the

traditional institutions and guides to behaviour, which until then provided a context which

ensured a minimum level of social cohesion and consistency. The notion of capitalism, i.e. a

purely utilitarian individualist system of social behaviour in relation to capitalist values of

freedom for private enterprise and free competition, led men to an unlimited conflict to

undermine one another’s livelihood (Hobsbawm, 1962 pp 200-216). The prevalence of capitalist

relations of production had need of course of a legal context which should be aimed at

10
legitimising the concept of private property. In a sense, capitalist society had need then of a law

able to provide a legitimate justification to that jungle anarchy of bourgeois society (Hobsbawm,

1962 pp 200-216). However, the disconnection between labour and ownership in relation to the

introduction of the industrial scale economy brought the catastrophe for lower classes. That is, the

capitalist system brought the calamity and ruination for those who lacked of ownership and for

those who were unable to follow successfully technological changes and social transformations.

Thus, lower classes rapidly found themselves to sunk into impoverish and pauperization, while

bourgeois members travelled their golden era (Hobsbawm, 1962 pp 200-216).

It is in the historical framework of this social transition then that we can found the very

beginning of urbanization and industrialization of Western cities. Great urban centres and

industrial areas such as Manchester and Liverpool grew rapidly in order to accommodate poor

labourers who arrived ready to engage in the capitalist production machine. At the same time, this

gigantic process of urban development in such unprecedented extent failed to keep pace with

elementary needs of social life. Social cohesion was almost inconsiderable while city services

like cleaning, sanitation, and housing were unable to serve such population explosions to the

effect that those great urban cities to be transformed into class-segregated centres. The new

labouring poor rapidly found themselves sinking into destitution and pauperization at the poor

east end of industrial areas while entrepreneurs and professionals enjoyed their golden era at the

newly-build good west end (Hobsbawm, 1962 pp 200-216).

Of course, this new social classification affected merely the new labouring poor class

which struggled to avoid its economic catastrophe either by self-destruction (suicide, infanticide,

prostitution, alcoholism) or by damaging the bourgeois class (pillage, crime, violence). In fact,

they were all attempts to escape the fate of being poor labourers or means for rebellion against the

new bourgeois regime (Hobsbawm, 1962 pp 200-216). Of course, such social changes as a

consequence of socio-economic inequalities brought the exclusion of labouring poor from the

minimum income for survival. Alcoholism, vandalism, pillage, purposeless violence as well as a

11
wider spirit of demoralization, alienation, and mental derangement were the signs of capitalist

socio-economic cataclysm. Indeed, if not all, a number of them still exist in modern industrial

areas in the same form and in the same extent more or less (e.g. suicides by domestic gas during

1950-60 in Britain, hooliganism and vandalism in football stadiums and outside of them as signs

of dispraise and protestation against social repression, petty-larceny, banditry, and petty-gangs in

the streets of big urban centres, etc.). It is in the context of that era then that we can find the birth

of the institution of police and the appearance of the first security forces in big industrial areas as

a repressive apparatuses and strict discipline controls for protection of private property. This

gigantic process rapidly divided society into two camps; on the one hand the labour class which

struggled by all means to become bourgeois and on the other the bourgeoisie which strived to

keep the working class in margin in order to appropriate its interests.

Apart from these distortions, the urban life and industrial work were likely of course to

lead the labouring poor to worse health. The industrial conditions of urban life led proletarians to

worse feeding, housing, and labour conditions to the effect that the average life expectancy

reduced considerably. The average expectation of life was dependent on these factors and so the

life expectancy was considerably different between industrial labourers and agriculture labourers

as well as between the upper, middle and lower class (Hobsbawm, 1962 pp 200-216). For

example, the life expectancy in the 1840s was twice as high for the labourers of rural Wiltshire

and Rutland than for those of Manchester and Liverpool (Hobsbawm, 1962 pp 206). Actually, it

was the absolute collapse and deprivation of the traditional institutions of social life and guides to

behaviour, the birth of a new competitive society, the invention of excellent arts to undermine

one another’s livelihood (Hobsbawm, 1962 pp 200-216). All these brought the emergence of a

number of utterly new social phenomena: suicide, infanticide, alcoholism, prostitution,

debauchery, vice, unemployment, criminality and violence as epiphenomena of terrible

epidemics, pestilences and economic slumps. The truth is that such social phenomena were not

entirely new, however, the importance rests on the fact that in capitalism they became

12
systematized functional-parts of the capitalist machine and in consequence economically

advantageous for the economic system. Practically, they were economically profitable and

politically beneficial for the bourgeois class. In short, they have begun to become essential means

in the struggle for proletariat exploitation. It was the age where everything it was combined in

such a way as to maximise and secure the accumulation of capital in the hands of the bourgeois

class and its allies.

Before we go into the analysis of this thesis, from the standpoint of three certain

theoretical traditions: Marxism/Structuralism, Poststructuralism/Postmodernism and

Interactionism/Behaviourism, and its comparison with empirical elements, it is first necessary to

show the methodological context on which will be based our approach.

13
 CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGICAL CONTEXT

“Preconceived ideas are pernicious in any scientific work, but foreshadowed problems are the
main endowment of the scientific thinker, and these problems are first revealed to the observer by his
theoretical studies”’ Β. Κ. Malinowski, Argonauts of the Western Pacific, 1922 – cited in M.
Hammersley & P. Atkinson, Ethnography: Principles in Practice, 1995:8-9

“The researcher must catch the process of interpretation through which [actors] construct their
actions” Herbert Blumer, Society as Symbolic Interaction, 1962:188

I. INTRODUCTION

The objective of sociology is the conception of social phenomena and the discovery of

social meanings, which are deep-rooted in social structure and behind the superficial character of

social reality. In the context of social research, social theories are contrasted with empirical

evidence with the uppermost object of developing sociological knowledge. In fact, sociological

research reflects the discussion between theories of social reality and empirical elements. The

sociologist, therefore, should regard as his starting point that there is not an objective social

reality, but, rather, only the theoretical and empirical knowledge can lead him to the construction

of it. This means that sociological research is as an attempt to conceive the social world through

the application of the methodological tools of social research. The methodological context,

therefore, provides the framework whereby we will attempt to answer our hypothesis.

II. THEORY AND RESEARCH

The study of society and the analysis of social elements which constitute the social

structure and its functions presuppose in the first instance the conception and the understanding

of social phenomena as a whole. The essence of social phenomena, despite their visible character,

14
cannot be conceptualized and become tangible if it previously is analyzed at an abstract and

general level. For Marx, this visible character of the social world is only the external image and

the superficial essence of things. Beyond that social entities have an ontological depth. Thus,

before we attempt to reach this ontological depth of social meanings we must distinguish theory’s

analysis in two distinct parts. For Althusser, the construction of a theory entails in the first

instance the abstract, i.e. the starting-point for theoretical practice (descriptive) and in the last

instance the concrete, i.e. its end-point (theory as such) (Althusser, 1969 pp. 249). However, what

ultimately distinguishes the discipline of sociology from the other theoretical sciences which

respectively attempt to explain social phenomena is that it approaches its subjects positively on

the basis of empirical findings. This means that the object of sociology is not only to establish

causal relations between social phenomena, but, rather, sociology tries to go beyond this level of

analysis through methodological research. Thus, what a sociologist has to do in the first instance

is to place his research in a methodological context. This methodological context will be

consequently the basis and the guide of theory and evidence, the model and formula upon which

theory and empirical findings will be based. In other words, research methodology is the way

whereby theory and research can be linked in order to testify hypotheses and build theories.

However, the link between theory and empirical evidence should not be regarded as a

straightforward process, but, rather, as a complicated and complex one (Bryman, 2004 pp 7).

The present work deals with a thesis that is based on a middle-range theory and as any

middle-range theory falls between grand theories and empirical findings, as an attempt to

understand and explain a specific aspect of social phenomena. In this work, the subject-matter is

the issue of increasing criminality as a consequence of class segregation/stratification in

capitalism. It is, therefore, a typical middle-range theory that guides this research which aims to

establish a causal link between crime and economic and social conditions in capitalist societies.

However, it could be said that the concept of this analysis is somewhat based on a great level of

abstractness of the theorizing, since it deals with a number of philosophical theories about social

15
phenomena. This fact inevitably makes it difficult to connect between theory and external reality.

It is, then, particularly important to use appropriate empirical evidence in order to enforce our

hypothesis. In the first instance, we can recognize two crucial issues regarding the collection and

manipulation of empirical data. Firstly, statistical data in general terms, are the most simplistic

delineation of social phenomena and therefore have need of a strong theoretical background.

Moreover, it should be considered as a fundamental principle the careful collection of appropriate

data, the methodical connection between them, and their connection with theoretical analysis.

Secondly, statistical data due to their descriptive nature should be manipulated in such a way as to

not lead the researcher to false inferences. Arguably, the connection between theory and evidence

is not a straightforward method and therefore easily can lead the researcher to misconceptions.

The researcher, also, easily can falsify and misinterpret the usefulness and accuracy of statistical

data and that in consequence can lead him to false inferences.

Thus, what is important to bear in mind during the conduct of research is that a social

researcher should be free, as much as possible, from preconceptions regarding the subject-matter

of his research. The social researcher should and ought to be neutral as regards his subject-matter

if his object is to reach an objective reading of social reality. It could be said, therefore, that the

value and the quality of research is judged from the ability and experience of the researcher. The

researcher can transform, through the positive nature of methodology, abstract ideas and concepts

regarding social phenomena into tangible arguments. This positivistic method is examined in

detail later in this chapter with regard to its application to our thesis.

III. DEDUCTIVE APPROACH

So far have been only discussed some general points about the nature of research

methodology. Let us now see more analytically the methodological context and structure of this

research. The methodological concept of this research is based on a deductive approach. This

16
presupposes, therefore, that the theory and hypothesis come first and drive the process of research

(Bryman, 2004 pp 10). In the first instance, the data are collected and then their outcome will be

used in order to confirm or reject the hypothesis. In other words, in a deductive approach the

hypothesis is the fruit of a deductive theory and moreover the method through which the data will

be gathered and manipulated is defined from it. Research findings, therefore, operate as an

external factor in order to test the hypothesis and revise the theory. However, this abstract

representation of methodology seems somewhat vague and indefinite and therefore should be

represented according to our thesis. Thus, let us translate this process into distinct steps according

to Bryman (2004) model about the process of deduction:

VI. REVISION
I. THEORY
OF THEORY

V. HYPOTHESIS
II.
CONFIRMED OR
HYPOTHESIS
REJECTED

III. DATA
IV. FINDINGS
COLLECTION

Figure 2.1: The process of deduction

I. THEORY: How the State and its powers in the modern capitalist and bourgeois societies form the
justice system in such a way as to exclude a certain class (proletariat) or a certain number of
people (lumpen proletariat) from society. How the law is the mechanism by which one social
class, usually referred to as the ruling class (bourgeoisie), keeps all the other classes in a
disadvantaged position. How in the last analysis the role of justice system, law, punishment,
prison, police, are all institutions and concepts (repressive and ideological state apparatuses)
which seem to have nothing in common with the state and political power, which seem to be
independent, but which actually aren’t.

II. HYPOTHESIS: Hypothesis is derived from the above theory and its object is to generate the
following questions: Why in capitalist societies are under-class people more likely to be the
subjects of imprisonment in contrast to upper-class people? Why in class society are underclass
people more likely to behave in a deviant manner? Whether this is merely the outcome of the
given justice system where some acts are defined as deviant whereas others are not? Whether in
the capitalist system the justice system is formatted and organised in such a way as to maintain
and reproduce capitalist relations of production with the ultimate aim of maintaining the ruling
class’s best interests? Why in the last analysis the phenomenon of criminality has been increased
in such unprecedented extent in capitalist societies?

17
III. DATA COLLECTION: Crime and prison data from USA, UK, and GREECE are compared in
order to prove our hypotheses. The official data are gathered by international institutions,
government departments, independent institutions, and other researchers. The collection of the
data is based on the hypothesis that the more advanced capitalist is one country, the more the
social and economic exclusion and therefore a part of society the so-called lower-class is more
likely to be marginalised, to turned to crime as a means for survival and rebellion and to led
finally to imprisonment through a number of state apparatuses.

IV. FINDINGS: Data will have been analysed and assessed. The outcome of this analysis will be
used to testify the thesis’s hypothesis.

V. HYPOTHESIS CONFIRMED OR REJECTED: Empirical findings in connection with the theory’s

analysis will be the basis for the confirmation or rejection of the hypothesis.

VI: REVISION OF THEORY: Theory will be revised in accordance with empirical and theoretical
findings.

IV. EPISTEMOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Epistemological considerations of sociological research are used to denote the

epistemological status of the nature of scientific practice. The issue of epistemological position is

probably the most important for sociological research since it defines what is regarded as

acceptable knowledge in a discipline (Bryman, 2004 pp 13). In other words, the epistemological

position influences the spirit of the research insofar as empirical evidence will be collected and

linked with theory according to its canons. The epistemological position of this research is based

on the concept of Positivism. The term positivism, in general terms, is used to denote that social

phenomena and their functions can be studied according to the principles and laws of the natural

sciences. In fact, the concept of positivism is borrowed from philosophical approaches and

therefore its attribution to social research is not entirely straightforward. However, we can

indicate some important points here.

According to positivism sociological research should be guided by the principles of

objectivism. This presupposes, therefore, that the scientific approach of the subject-matter must

be based on objective criteria as regards the process of analysis (deductivism), the manipulation

of the data, and the link between empirical evidence and theory (Bryman, 2004 pp 14). On this

18
concept is based our analysis and in accordance with positivism canons and methods crime and

prison data will be studied. Therefore, this research follows a positivistic epistemological method

as an attempt to go beyond the abstract theoretical level of analysis of the social world. Thereby,

we will attempt to assist our thesis and positions with the scientific accuracy and validity of the

principles of natural sciences.

V. ONTOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Ontological considerations are concerned with the way whereby individuals

conceptualize and interpret the social world and its elements (Bryman, 2004 pp 19). In fact, social

entities constitute the social structure and define its function. However, the social structure should

be regarded as external from social entities because it has its own independent reality. Society,

then, stands beyond the individual and it is what defines in the last instance his social role and his

social practice. What matters, therefore, is the study of social structure and the function of society

as a whole through them. Thus, for advocates of this reading of society, social structure has its

own existence that is external to the individual’s and that in the last analysis possesses a tangible

character. This reading of society with regard to ontological considerations is based on

Objectivism. The ontological position of objectivism is consequently what mainly guides this

research since the central question of this analysis is how the structure forms the individual and in

the last instance his social practice in the context of his institutional role. Thus, the organization

and the function of this institutional role are predetermined from the social structure. The

individual, therefore, is bound to adopt the values and the rules of the structure, to harmonize

with it, and in the last analysis to reproduce it. This means that the individual in the context of his

institutional role learns to obey, through a number of repressive and ideological social

mechanisms, with the rules and regulations of the structured social reality.

19
 Despite that this schematic approach of social roles resembles somehow Goffman’s

dramaturgical perspective (role-taking) however, it is used by classical structuralists in a very

different theoretical way. In fact, structuralists conceptualize the social world through the

structure, which defines the social practice of subjects. Structuralists base their analyses upon the

concept of the “death of the subject”. For them, the structure has the dominant role in society’s

formation. In a reverse way, the tradition of constructionism claims that social reality is in a

constant state of change and revision through social interaction. The central question for them is

how ultimately individuals act toward given reality according to the meaning the things have for

them. In other words, they follow a reverse reading of the social world, i.e. from individual to

structure. Despite this methodological paradox, constructionism theories are examined later in

this work in order to fill the theoretical gap between society and individual. This lack of clearness

is generated from the descriptive, simpleminded and indefinite character of constructionism and

the weakness of structuralism to admit any autonomy to the individual (Craib, 1992 pp 264).

Thus, our objective is to follow an approach which will be based on the concept: from theoretical

disjunction to theoretical synthesis, in order to formulate a fully social theory of deviance.

Undoubtedly, the use of macro and micro sociological analyses provides us with a variety of

standpoints regarding the issue of criminality in capitalism. Thus, we must distinguish, at this

point, two main streams of sociological traditions according to the way through which they

attempt to explain the society:

Structural theories: Structuralism (classic structuralists): Structuralism should be

considered as a wide theoretical concept, which under the form of theory attempts to identify and

indicate the general meanings of social context and its structure. Structural-Marxism (Althusser,

Poulantzas): For the Structural-Marxism, what in the last instance matters is the definition of our

acts as a consequence of the dominant social structure, which has its own self-determined and

independent existence. Thus, our social practice should be conceptualized as a means of

reproduction of the social structure. Therefore, through this socialization process individuals are

20
reduced to submissive and controlled subjects of the structure. It should be emphasized, at this

point, that structuralists conceive the individual in a different way compared to constructionists.

In fact, they conceive the issue of individuality under the meaning of subject, i.e. the individual as

a social subject. Post-structuralism and Post-modernism (Foucault): The critique of structuralism

can be seen as the reason for the emergence of the stream of poststructuralism and somewhat later

of postmodernism. For postmodernists, the social world consists of a number of power relations

and in consequence it is inevitable such relations produce respective forms of reaction. In brief,

postmodern theories have emerged from their contradiction with structural theories as an attempt

to include the social subject into their considerations. This is not to say that poststructuralists and

postmodernists recognise no value to the structure, but, rather, they attempt to explain

individual’s social practice on the basis of power relations. They conceive social phenomena as a

whole through a two-dimensional analysis; in the first instance stands the concept of acentric-

structure as an external independent reality, which nevertheless is produced and reproduced in the

second instance from the social practice of the subject, i.e. the subject as a social creator (Craib,

1992 pp 247-254).

Action theories: Constructionism (Parsons): it could be construed as a theoretical

tradition which is concerned with society’s function from the standpoint of social interaction. For

them, there is no independent social structure beyond individual interaction. Symbolic

interactionism (The Chicago School): is the theoretical tradition that places the individual and his

social practice in the centre of its analysis. For them, social structure results from everyday

interaction between individuals and therefore the structure has no independent external reality. In

other words, they refuse to accept that society has its own external existence beyond the

individuals, but, rather, it is in a constant state of change and revision through social interaction.

In general terms, for interactionists, the individual stands above the structure and is what in the

last analysis construct the structure (Craib, 1992 pp 65-69). Structuration theory (Giddens):

attempts to explain the social world through the concept of “dualism of the structure”. Giddens

21
rejects the structuralistic explanation that there is an external independent social reality beyond

the individuals, but, rather, maintains that the social structure is produced and reproduced through

the social act of subjects (Craib, 1992 pp 217-247).

The above mentioned theories are all products of theoretical categorisations which have

emerged from and are based on the grand theories of Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Parsons, and

Giddens to name a few, and which can be categorized respectively into two main streams

according to the way in which they conceptualize social reality. The first one is the concept of

positivism and the other one is that of interpretivism. However, the aim of this work is not to

demonstrate the differences between the various sociological schools and therefore in the

following chapters we will emphasize only some of them. So far we have only discussed some

general points about the theoretical traditions which are employed in the context of this analysis.

However, in the following chapters of this work the above mentioned theories will be studied and

analysed in much greater detail in the context of our theoretical thesis. Let us now move our

attention to methodological methods regarding the research design and research strategy.

VI. RESEARCH STRATEGY: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

It should be emphasized once again that the issue of what and how social research should

be carried out is an important one because it constitutes the methodological framework in which

our theory will be developed. Let us begin, therefore, with the representation of the research

strategy that guides this analysis. In the first instance, two main points regarding the methodology

of this research should be distinguished. The first one is the objective character that should

govern our analysis at the theoretical level and the other one is the doctrine of positivism, which

in methodological terms should be translated into measurement. It seems pertinent here,

therefore, to provide a brief outline of the fundamental considerations and building blocks of

quantitative research (Bryman, 2004 pp 25):

22
 Figu
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH:

● Principle orientation to the role of theory in relation to research → Deductive: testing of theory

● Epistemological orientation → Natural science model: Positivism

● Ontological orientation → Objectivism

re 2.2: Quantitative research strategy

We shall not discuss these positions again since they have been already examined in

previous pages. What must be done at this stage is to expose the nature of quantitative research

and the main steps that it follows. Quantitative research, in the context of social research, could

be described as a systematic scientific method that is based on numerical measurement and

attempts to investigate the causal relationship between quantitative properties and social

phenomena. A typical quantitative research should be conducted according to the following steps

(Bryman, 2004):

1.Theory→ 2.Hypothesis→ 3.Research design→ 4.Devise measures of concepts→

5.Select research sites→ 6.Select research subjects/respondents→ 7.Administer research

instruments/collect data→ 8.Process data→ 9.Analyse data→ 10.Findings/conclusions→

11.Write up finding/conclusions.
igure 2.3: The process of quantitative research

On the basis of this process the positivistic tradition in quantitative research is focused on

numerical and statistical data in order to elicit causal relations about the subject-matter.

Quantitative research, therefore, entails a measurement of social facts, because a social fact is the

very essence of a theory that attempts to explain the social phenomena. For Durkheim, social

facts are the beliefs, tendencies and practices of the group taken collectively (Durkheim, 1938 pp

23
50-59). Given, therefore, that we have defined hitherto the social fact of our theory, we need a

concept in order to operate as the building block of this theory. The concept of our analysis, in

strict terms, is the “social structure of capitalism”. This concept, however, is not enough to

establish causal relations beyond the theoretical level and therefore it will have to be measured.

Thus, measurement provides the basis for the evaluation of the significance of causal relations

and associations. Moreover, measurement allows our observations to be expressed in numerical

and statistical terms with graphs and tables. This is achievable with the use of methodological

techniques and instruments of quantitative research. The quantitative method that is used in the

context of this research is the “secondary analysis of official statistics”. Therefore, our research

will have to be based on statistical analyses of crime and prison official data. We have hitherto

seen only some general points regarding the quantitative research. However, methodological

techniques of quantitative research will be studied in greater detail in chapter six where crime and

prison data will be analysed. Before we move to the last part of this chapter let us look at what a

typical secondary analysis entails.

The decision to employ official statistics in our research is based on the fact that any

other method of data collection would be extremely time-consuming and expensive to conduct in

the context of a master’s thesis. Despite that a secondary analysis of crime and prison official

statistical data contains a number of limitations (lack of familiarity with data, complexity of the

data, no control over data quality and absence of key variables). However, it can be proved fit for

our purpose for two main reasons. Firstly, it allows us to avoid the employment of qualitative

research. The use of qualitative methods could be particularly difficult for our research since it

presupposes extremely time-consuming and great economic expenses. Therefore, a secondary

analysis of official data gives us the capability to analyse through comparative design the general

trends of a country and draw links with our theory. However, the hypothesis test is not a

straightforward method since there are a number of external factors. The weakness of secondary

analysis is therefore that it is unable to take peripheral factors into consideration. Secondly,

24
secondary analysis enables us to employ high-quality data sets which are based on large samples.

Moreover, official data operate as an “unobtrusive method”, a term coined by (Webb et al, 1966),

and that is based on non-reaction methods (Bryman, 2004 pp 214). This fact undoubtedly adds

points to research objectivity since the researcher has no control over the data collection. The use

of official statistical data, however, poses as many problems as it solves since there are a number

of advantages and disadvantages regarding the reliability and validity of the data gathering and

manipulation. We shall not go into the analysis of these issues here, it is enough to have

mentioned them. We pay more attention about these issues later.

VII. RESEARCH DESIGN: COMPARATIVE DESIGN

A research design represents the framework in which research strategy and research

methods will be employed for the collection and analysis of data. In other words, it is the

structure upon which the methodological elements will be constructed. As we have hitherto seen,

this research will employ crime and prison official data from U.S.A, U.K and Greece in order to

prove with statistical evidence our hypothesis that the more advanced capitalist is one country,

the more the social exclusion and inequality and therefore a part of society (the so-called lower-

class) is more likely to be socio-economically marginalised and in consequence to turn to

criminality and lastly to the imprisoned. Therefore, the research design in which will be deployed

the quantitative methods and techniques of the collection and analysis of the data is the

Comparative design.

This research could be based on cross-sectional design, but the comparative design fits

our purpose better since our object is to seek explanations for similarities and differences and to

gain a greater awareness and a deeper understanding of capitalist reality in different national

contexts. In fact, comparative design is based on cross-sectional design format since it represents

two or more cross-sectional studies carried out at the same point in time (Bryman, 2004 pp 53-

25
54). The essential element of comparative design is that it allows us through the cross-national

research format to examine in depth the social phenomena and draw links between different

levels of capitalist systems and the phenomenon of criminality. Therefore, our object is through

comparative design, which entails comparisons and associations between contrasting findings, to

examine our hypothesis in the context of three different capitalist systems. The hybrid format of

comparative design was used in Durkheim’s Suicide (1897) wherein official statistics on suicide

by several countries were compared in order to examine the phenomenon of suicide in a

multinational level. We shall see in much more detail all these issues in chapter six. We can say

that we now possess some knowledge about the subject-matter and methodological context of this

research for examining the issues of criminality, deviance, and imprisonment in capitalist

societies. The next chapter deals with the concept of the State in capitalism from the standpoint of

Structuralism and Structural-Marxism.

26
 CHAPTER III

THE STATE

“The State is the official resume of society”

Karl Marx, The Poverty of the Philosophy, 1846 cited in Nicos Poulantzas, Political
Power and Social Classes, 1978:49

“The State is hegemony protected by the armour of coercion”

Antonio Gramsci, Prison Notebooks, 1971:263

“Three possibilities were therefore open to such of the poor as found themselves in the path of bourgeois
society…they could strive to become bourgeois; they could allow themselves to be ground down; or they
could rebel”
Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Revolution, 1962:200

I. INTRODUCTION

Largely based on the writings of Karl Marx, Marxist criminology claims that crime is

inevitable in capitalist societies, because a certain class, i.e. the proletariat, is marginalized and

excluded from society on the basis of the unequal distribution of material wealth between classes.

Marx held that man in capitalist society is defined by his relationship to the means of production,

i.e. in class society man is defined by his position in the class scale (Marx, 1845 pp 76). The

central thesis of Marxism holds that class struggle is the motive force of history. In the

Communist Manifesto (1848), Marx and Engels claimed that “The history of all hitherto existing

society is the history of class struggle” (Marx and Engels, 1848 pp 40). This means that there is

no consensual social contract between state and citizens in capitalist societies, because the

economy is the determinant factor of the capitalist mode of production and in consequence of

social relations. This happens on the basis that economic power is a priori unequally distributed

27
within society insofar that produces two certain social classes; the bourgeois class and the

proletariat class, i.e. the owners of the means of production and the labour power. In social terms,

capitalism divides the social classes into the ruling class on the one hand and the subordinate

class on the other. Thus, the capitalist social model distinguishes the social classes on the basis of

ownership. On this economic determined basis are structured and formulated power relations and

the politico-legal relationships between state and citizens.

Marxists hold that state political power is exerted in society in such a way as to reinforce

economic inequality within classes by applying individual property rights in the law. In The

German Ideology (1845), Marx held that the law is the mechanism by which the ruling class

(bourgeoisie) keeps the other class (proletariat) in a disadvantage position (Marx, 1845 pp 113).

For the Marxist philosophy, it is the a priori determination of poverty and inequality (class

segregation) within society, i.e. the structural social environment gives rise to crime and

criminogenic conditions, which in the last instance causes criminal activities. Given the fact,

therefore, that in capitalism the social classes lack of common ground, we can say that it is the

unequal distribution of material wealth that inevitably bring them into conflict with each other

(Marx and Engels, 1848 Chapter I). Indeed, criminal activities in Marxist’s view are to be

considered as a means of survival and rebellion in class society. Thus, in class divided societies,

crimes are committed by individuals on the basis of their membership of a class. Indeed,

researches such as those conducted by Marxist criminologist Bonger William (1905) and William

Chambliss (1971), reveal that people from lower socio-economic classes are more likely to be not

only the offenders of the majority of criminal activities, but also the victims of such activities

which are committed by memberships of their class.

Note that central thesis of historical materialism is that man is above all mind, a product

of history, i.e. a product of a given historical condition insofar that his consciousness is totally

determined by the social structure (Gramsci, 1988 pp 57). Marx, in the Preface to A Contribution

to the Critique of Political Economy (1859), claimed that: “It is not the consciousness of men that

28
determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence that determines their

consciousness” (Marx, 1859 pp. 389). Thus, the social differentiation of crime, i.e. the age, class,

ethnicity, gender, and locality are all features that constitute the concept of social class.

According to the Marxist analysis, social class is a concept that in the last analysis is determined

by economic relations (property, occupation, education, qualifications, language, etc.). For Pierre

Bourdieu, the distinction between bourgeois tastes and sensitivities and the working class tastes

and sensitivities is directly associated with economic power (Bourdieu, 1984 pp 41-42). For

example, an uneducated, impoverished, and unemployed individual who lives in a slum of a big

industrial city is more likely to turn to crime or to be the victim of a criminal activity than an

individual of a typical bourgeois family who is well-heeled, graduated, qualified, employed in an

administrative position in a company, and live in a luxurious and safe neighborhood. It is not an

accident then that we are used to parallel, at least in our Western societies, the image of the

dangerous individual with that of the poor labourer, i.e. a person in rags, alcoholic, unshaven, etc.

It is not, also, an accident the fact that lower-class people, on the basis of income and occupation,

comprise the majority of victims and perpetrators of the overall crime.

It is important to bear in mind that in class society, the economy determines in the last

analysis the social structure, i.e. the social class determines the notion of human nature and the

realization of the essence of human nature. Given this fact, therefore, in capitalism there is not

one human nature but a number of certain class-divided human natures, i.e. a bourgeois human

nature, a proletarian human nature…but there is no need to go on. It is enough to give here an

example. The state, i.e. the state of the ruling class, enacts laws in such a way as to protect the

unequally distributed wealth within society, i.e. property. Thus, the decision whether to prosecute

or to convict an offender may be skewed by having the resources to employ a good lawyer. The

same could be said about the distribution of punishment, because for any given crime the degree

of punishment may vary according to the social class of the perpetrator. It is a common

phenomenon in capitalist societies, people from lower classes to be sentenced for imprisonment

29
because failed to pay state taxes, while severe corporate crimes are rarely prosecuted and even

more rarely punished. It is important to note here that in a letter to Friedrich Engels in (1882)

Karl Marx wrote: “You know very well where we found our idea of class struggle; we found it in

the work of the French historians who talked about the race struggle” (Foucault, 1975-76 pp 79).

Thus, issues of racial struggle, gender struggle, or religious struggle, are all concepts and notions

that should be considered in the context of class struggle and not at the individual or group level.

Marxist criminology, therefore, is the theoretical school which seeks to construe the

phenomenon of criminality within societies, i.e. to establish causal relationships between society

and crime, according to the Marxist philosophy. For the Marxist tradition, social institutions and

their functions are determined by the structure, which in turn is determined in capitalist

formation, i.e. in the capitalist mode of production, by the economy. Therefore, in mature

capitalism the ideas, values, and norms are all steeped in capitalist ideology, i.e. are determined

by the economy. Thus, in capitalism the values are translated into material products insofar that

the economics seem real while the values fake. However, the ruling class has need of a legal

framework for protecting material relations, which in the last analysis ensure power relations and

exploitation relations. Given the fact, therefore, that the modern state is under the control of the

dominant class, i.e. the class that owns the means of production, and given that the dominant

class has at its disposal state power and its apparatuses, we can say that the dominant class forms

the law in such a way as to: (i) reflect its interests and (ii) keep the working class in a constant

state of proletarianization.

For the Marxist tradition, the state’s function is secured by the necessary conformity to

the social order, which is induced by a number of means. For example, the law is the dominant

mean used to enforce the interests of the state, i.e. the interests of the ruling class (Marx, 1845 pp

113). However, beyond the state legal means, there are a number of state ideological and cultural

means by which the ruling class ensures its socio-political dominance. For Maurice Godelier

(1972), if one controls the ideas, controls as well the society. Godelier claimed that the ruling

30
class holds two weapons; the violence and the consent. Consent is preferable in capitalism

because it is stronger and costs less than violence. Thus, given that the ruling class has at its

disposal the state apparatuses (ideological and repressive) we can say that ensures its dominance

over the subordinate class massively by ideology (consent) and secondarily by repression

(violence).

What is, however, the view of Marxism regarding deviance? Marxist tradition considered

the phenomenon of deviance as a symptom of the social structure (inherent). For Structural-

Functionalists, the phenomenon of deviance is inherent to social structure, because capitalist

social formation lacks of social integration regarding economic power. In fact, a social structure

which provides only hypothetically the same goals to all its members without giving them at the

same time equal means to achieve them, it is a social formation which inevitably produces

criminogenic conditions: (Merton’s schema :goals→ means→ and the American dream) (Merton,

1938 pp 672-682). Classical structuralists hold a more radical view about the phenomenon of

deviance in capitalism. For the Marxist tradition, the phenomenon of deviance is social in origin

and derives from the causal relation between economy and social conditions. The phenomenon of

alienation of the working-class was always of central importance for the young Marx. Marx, in

The German Ideology (1845), believed that alienation arises from private labour, i.e. from

commodity production (Marx and Engels, 1845 Volume I). For Marx, in capitalism, the

production system is not social, but, on the contrary, privately owned and therefore in that context

the labourers do not function in their social role as social beings but rather as instruments. It

happens because in capitalism working-class people do not produce labor for the common wealth,

but, on the contrary, produce surplus-value on behalf of the ruling class which is the capital-

earner class. In Capital (1876), Marx held that the materialism of the modern industrial

production leads working-class people, which function under capitalist conditions, to lose control

of their lives, i.e. alienation of people of their human nature (Marx, 1876 Volume I).

31
 Thus, alienation is a systematic result of capitalist social conditions (Marx, 1867 Volume

I). In fact, both bourgeoisie and proletariat memberships are alienated in capitalist society but in

different way. However, what distinguishes the memberships of these classes as regards the crime

is that, the immiseration which runs working-class people is what in the last analysis turns them

disproportionately to criminality as a means of survival and rebellion. However, the reader will

not have failed to note here one thing. Why, then, people from the ruling class commit crimes?

They do that on the basis of self-estrangement, i.e. alienation of human values and in

consequence of human nature. Remember that ruling class people are alienated in capitalism but

in a different way, i.e. the misery and the vanity of the modern industrial life lead individuals

from the ruling class to lose their selves and occasionally to turn to deviance. Let us now turn our

attention to the essentials of the Marxist theory of the state, in order to expose how the State in

the hands of the ruling class forms the law, and applies it in State Power and exercises it by the

State Apparatuses, in such a way as to hold in the last analysis the subordinate class in a

disadvantage position.

II. THE ESSENTIALS OF THE MARXIST THEORY OF THE STATE

Before we start to study the role of the state in capitalism, it is first necessary to conceive

the structure of capitalist society, i.e. the mode of capitalist production, according to the Marxist

tradition. For classical Marxists, the economy possesses the dominant role in the formation of a

social structure and it is what ultimately determines social institutions and their functions. The

Marxist representation of society as an edifice consists of the infrastructure (economic base) on

which are erected and formatted the superstructure (politico-legal and ideological institutions).

IDEOLOGY

SUPERSTRUCTURE

POLITICO-LEGAL

INFRASTRUCTURE ECONOMIC BASE 32

 Figure 3.1: The structure of society

In Marxist theory what happens in the infrastructure is determined by what happens in the

economic base. For Althusser, the whole edifice (social structure) is determined “in the last

instance” by the economic base (Althusser, 1984 pp 9). Althusser emphasizes in his thesis that

the economy determines the upper-floors of the edifice only in the last instance because of the

double character of the superstructure, i.e. the superstructure (a) has a relative autonomy

regarding the base and (b) there is a “reciprocal action” between superstructure and base

(Althusser, 1984 pp 9). Thus, in capitalism the economy is what virtually determines the social

structure and even some sub-structures and institutions which seem in the first instance

independent of the economy they are determined by it in the last instance. If this Althusserian

thesis then is well-founded, i.e. that in the last analysis the economy determines the whole

structure, it allows us to study our hypothesis that in the last analysis the role of justice system,

law, punishment, prison, police, courts and army are all institutions and concepts (repressive and

ideological state apparatuses) which seem to have nothing in common with the state and political

power, which seem to be independent, but which actually aren’t. In other words, what we are

trying to examine is how and by what means the economy determines in every level the social

formation, i.e. the structure and the social subjects in their institutional role. How, therefore, is the

justice system determined in capitalism in such a way as to provide the ruling class with the

necessary legal framework for the reproduction of the capitalist conditions of production? How

does the law, which is the law of the ruling class, define what is legal and what is not and how

does it ultimately impose certain types of social behaviour in order to ensure the ruling class’s

economic interests?

33
 The capitalist mode of production, i.e. the distinction between owners and non-owners,

brought with industrialization and urbanization the concept of the Civil Law. In the context of this

legal framework then it is possible to realize certain capitalist values such as: freedom for private

enterprise and free competition (Hobsbawm, 1962 pp 200). The capitalist relations of property

are what define the social classes and set up an a priori separation of the working-class from the

means of production, i.e. determine the relationship of rulers and ruled (Poulantzas, 1978 pp 157).

It is essential to say that for the Marxist theory the civil law is the legal framework in which the

capitalist conditions of production are ensured, i.e. the law of private property. Therefore, this

concept of law is not defined according to human and natural rights, but rather it is designated in

such a way as to secure the ruling class’s best interests in the context of class struggle, i.e. the

civil law function as a repressive and ideological apparatus of class subjection. The concept of

civil law, then, is derived from the concept of private property and its role is to maintain the

necessary capitalist conditions for proletariat exploitation. We are going to support this thesis by

statistical data in (Chapter VI) wherein it will be revealed that the majority of illegal behaviours

have as their basis economic objectives or at least are impelled by economic motives in the last

instance. In brief, we shall attempt to prove statistically that the majority of criminal behaviours

are derived from the lower classes, i.e. the higher position on the class scale the less the tendency

for criminality, the lower position on the class scale the more the tendency for criminality.

What we need here is to study two crucial issues; the State Apparatus and State Power

which both constitute the institutions of the State. Remember that the state for Marx is the official

resume of society, i.e. the domain in which the political and social class struggle takes place. Let

us now examine how the state and its powers in the hands of the ruling class (bourgeois) form the

judicial system, the education system, etc, in such a way as to keep all the other classes

(proletariat and lumpen-proletariat) in a disadvantaged position in order to produce and reproduce

the necessary capitalist conditions of production which ultimately maintain the ruling class’s best

interests.

34
 III. THE STATE

Let us begin with the foundations of the Marxist theory of the state. For the Marxist

tradition the State is explicitly conceived as a repressive apparatus (Althusser, 1984 pp 11). This

Althusserian thesis exposes the very nature of the social role of the state in class society, i.e. the

state as the regulator of the structure and therefore as a repressive machine in the hands of the

ruling class in the political struggle conducted between the social classes. This schema, therefore,

presupposes a repressor and a repressed, i.e. a ruler and a ruled. In social terms the state is a

machine of repression in the hands of the ruling class (bourgeoisie) which operates as a shield of

domination over the subjective class (proletariat) in the process of proletariat exploitation. Thus,

the state in capitalism, i.e. in class society, is firstly and foremost a class state and as such is

defined as a state apparatus and therefore as a force of repression for ensuring the interests of the

ruling class. We can return thus again in our previous thesis that the state is the official intervener

in the class struggle conducted by the ruling class against the lower classes. This means that the

THE STATE

STATE POWER
STATE APPARATUS
The capacity of a class to realize its interests through state apparatus

IDEOLOGICAL STATE APPARATUS

REPRESSIVE STATE APPARATUS Religion, education, family, legal, political,
Government, administration, army, police, courts, prisons etc trade-union, culture, communication, etc

FUNCTION BY FUNCTION BY
VIOLENCE IDEOLOGY

state and its powers (socio-politico-legal apparatuses) are the apparatus whereby the bourgeois

class and its allies appropriate the interests of the proletariat class. The state is in consequence the

arena in which the socio-political class struggle for the seizure and conservation of state power

takes place.

35

Figure 3.2: The State

 To that end, therefore, we propose the following definitions in order to facilitate the

following analysis: 1) Social formation: is the particular model/matrix of articulation of the

various economic, political, ideological, legal levels. 2) The State: is the official multi-level

institutional structure which consists of three main functional sub-systems: the political-

administrative apparatus, the judicial apparatus, and the ideological apparatus. Both are employed

by state apparatus in order to produce, maintain, and reproduce the capitalist conditions of

production, i.e. the productivity of labour that allows the ruling class to appropriate the surplus

value from the subordinate class. In fact, the state is the guarantor of the cohesion between socio-

politico-economical levels in which proletariat exploitation takes place. 3) State Power: is the

institutional political domain through which the ruling class exercises its authority over the

subordinate class whose labour and surplus value are exploited and appropriated by the former.

4) The State Apparatus: is the executive state terrain, i.e. the domain in which a number of state

mechanisms and apparatuses (RSAs: repressive state apparatuses and ISAs: ideological state

apparatuses) function by violence and ideology, in which state power is exercised and the state’s

functions are realized.

IV. STATE POWER

Given the fact that the state is the place in which contradictions of the various levels of a

social formation are realized, we can say that state power is the domain in which the cohesion of

a formation’s unity is maintained on the one hand and the place in which a formation’s unity

breaks, i.e. insofar as this break is a cohesive factor, on the other (Poulantzas, 1973 pp 45). But

let us clarify this thesis by distinguishing the following. The main function of the state is to

maintain the unity of a social formation, i.e. to maintain the cohesion of the various levels of the

structure. Therefore, in order the state to ensure this function employs the state apparatus which is

36
at its disposal, i.e. the ideological and repressive apparatuses which both secure the cohesion of

the structure by ensuring the submission of the lower class.

What is, then, the role of state power? Remember that for Marx in the Communist

Manifesto: (i) every class struggle is a political struggle and (ii) the class struggle is the motive

force of history (Poulantzas, 1973 pp 37). The political class struggle then requires a domain in

order to realize within it its practice. Thus, the political struggle between social classes has as its

objective the seizure of state power. State power, then, is what ensures the cohesion of the various

structures and the unity of the social formation as a whole through state apparatus, i.e. RSAs and

ISAs. It is in this framework, then, that we can say that the role of state power is that of dividing a

social formation into classes and producing in consequence a dominant political class.

V. THE STATE APPARATUS

As we have hitherto seen the State Apparatus is the official executive domain of the

state’s functions. For the Marxist tradition the state apparatus is the governmental and

administrative terrain in which are unified and integrated the state’s institutions such as:

government, administration, police, courts, prison, etc. What Althusser added to the Marxist

conception of the state apparatus is that unified and categorized a number of distinct and

specialized institutions into the ISAs, i.e. ideological state apparatuses. For Althusser, the ISAs

especially in the context of mature capitalism comprise a distinct part of the state apparatus and

perform discernible functions from those of RSAs, i.e. repressive state apparatuses. Let us clarify

the role of ISA in the framework of the state apparatus by elucidating the different functions

whereby it realizes its objectives in contrast to RSA. Firstly and foremost the RSAs function

massively and predominantly by repression while the ISAs function by ideology. Despite that this

thesis sounds quite clear, however, in practice it is much more complex because both are

administered by the same social class (ruling) or at least by the same ideology (dominant). For

now it is enough to have mentioned the issue of ruling ideology in terms of its role in the context

37
of the state’s cohesion. We shall return to this later. Let us firstly look at the ideological state

apparatuses, i.e. religious, family, school, university, legal, political, cultural, and mass media.

For Marxist theory, the state apparatus is mainly used by the ruling class as a means of

control over the masses in the context of maintenance of political and social order. What

distinguishes then the ISA is that it exercises its authority over the subordinate class through

ideological mechanisms. It is essential to say that ISAs and RSAs are in a constant state of

interplay. This means that ISAs despite the fact that function massively by ideology, however, in

order to maintain formation’s cohesion and lower class’s subjection function secondarily by

violence. In a reverse way the RSAs function massively by violence and secondarily by ideology

(Althusser, 1984 pp 19). Another important issue that should be noted is that despite the RSAs

belong entirely to the public domain, the ISAs belong partly to the public domain and partly to

the private. However, this is not an accident in the context of the capitalist state because the state

is neither public nor private, but rather is the state of the ruling class, since the concept of the

state as such is merely based on the production and reproduction of capitalist relations of

production, i.e. the expansion of capital through proletariat exploitation. For Gramsci, this

distinction between the public and the private is a distinction internal to the bourgeois class

(Althusser, 1984 pp 18). Thus, the private domain can perfectly function as ideological state

apparatus because in capitalism the private domain is not only in direct relation to the state

administration, but, indeed, is the private domain, i.e. the capitalists, which possess the political

and economic power of the state. This leads us to the following thesis. Given the fact that the

state is the state of the ruling class and in consequence state power is in principle in the hands of

the ruling class, we can say that the ruling class and its allies have at their disposal the state

apparatuses as a means of subjection over the subordinate class. What, then, is the role of

ideology?

For Althusser the ideology, which is firstly and foremost the ideology of the ruling class

because the dominant class has at its disposal the means of production and reproduction of

38
ideology and moreover the means for infliction of it over the masses, plays in the mature

capitalism the most important role for the reproduction of capitalist conditions of production and

the maintenance of political and social order (established). In this way, then, the ruling class

ensures the necessary conditions for the proletariat exploitation and in turn the capital

accumulation. In fact, the ideology is the necessary condition for the reproduction of capitalist

relations of production and it is the fundamental element through which the necessary conditions

of production are reproduced. Thus, what is now essential is to clarify the concept of the

reproduction of the conditions of production. Indeed, it is precisely in the context of this concept

that we can establish the very essence of the capitalist mode of production, i.e. exploitation from

man to man. The bestiality and the brutality of capitalist relations of production is what divides

the society into social classes and in consequence cause social exclusion and its social

consequences.

VI. ON THE REPRODUCTION OF THE CONDITIONS OF PRODUCTION

The model of capitalism is characterized by the determination of a formation’s

production by the economy in the last instance. For Marx, the mode of production determines the

character of a social formation, i.e. the social level, political level, economic level, etc,

(Poulantzas, 1973 pp 59). In fact, capitalism consumes and is consumed by itself and therefore it

has need of a legal framework as a means of socio-political order maintenance which is an

essential precondition for the reproduction of the capitalist conditions of production. Indeed,

capitalism should be conceived as a well-structured machine which performs systematized

functions on behalf of the ruling class. By what means, then, does the ruling class ensure the

conditions of production? By the reproduction of: (i) productive force, i.e. (a) means of

production and (b) labour power and (ii) existing relations of production.

39
 PRODUCTION

EXISTING RELATIONS OF
PRODUCTIVE FORCES
PRODUCTION

MEANS OF PRODUCTION
i.e. material conditions of LABOR POWER
WAGES IDEOLOGY
production i.e. labor power

Figure 3.3: The reproduction of the conditions of production

Remember that for Marx: “every child knows that a social formation which did not

reproduce the conditions of production at the same time as it produced would not last a year”

(Althusser, 1984 pp. 1). A social formation, then, has to be reproduced in order to ensure the

conditions of its production. Thus, should be reproduced the means of production, i.e. the

material conditions of production and the productive forces, i.e. the labour power. The means of

production are reproduced by the necessity of reproduction (supply and demand), i.e. the endless

chain of Marx’s global market procedure theory (Althusser, 1984 pp 3). We shall not go into the

analysis of the reproduction of the means of production here. What matters on the present work is

the reproduction of the productive forces, since the reproduction of the labour power is what in

the last analysis reproduces the whole capitalist system of production, i.e. proletariat exploitation

is the motive power of the capitalist machine. To sum up, therefore, we propose the following: (i)

The social precondition of capitalist system, i.e. the labour class in capitalism, is the lower-class

and in consequence the subordinate class. Thus, the subjection of the labour class is what ensures

the reproduction of the capitalist relations of production, i.e. the surplus-value exploitation

through proletariat extortion. (ii) The economic precondition of the capitalist system, i.e. the

labour class, is on the one hand the productive labour and on the other the ultimate consumer of

capitalist production. Thus, the labourer is ultimately the consumer of its product, for the

production of which he has paid much less in contrast to the purchasing value of the product. So,

40
the labor power is what ultimately maintains the socio-economic correlations, i.e. capital

accumulation.

To what extend and by what means therefore is the subjection of the labour class

ensured? It is ensured on the one hand by the wages, i.e. the essential precondition for the

reproduction of labor power “…in order to enable the wage-earner to present himself again at

the factory gate the next day and any further day God grants him” (Althusser, 1984 pp 5), and on

the other by the capitalist ideology, i.e. the dominant ideology. We now return on the issue of

ruling ideology and how this molds the ideology of entire capitalist social formation through

ISAs. Here, we are entering in a domain in the context of which the Marxist tradition shifts its

attention outside production, i.e. On Ideology.

VII. ON IDEOLOGY

The reproduction of the capitalist machine not only requires the reproduction of the

material conditions of production, but also the reproduction of the productive forces. The

reproduction of productive forces is ensured by ideology, i.e. the capitalist/material ideology.

This means that not only the productive labour but the agents of production as well must be

steeped in dominant ideology. Remember that what matters for the capitalist system is its own

reproduction whatever the means that are deployed in this struggle. Thus, the economic

determined ideology has to reproduce the proletarians as labour power and the agents of

exploitation as capitalists (Althusser, 1984 pp 7). Therefore, the ISAs play the determinant role in

the formation of ideological and political conscience, i.e. the capitalist conscience. How, then, is

the capitalist conscience secured? It is secured by the capitalist knowledge (know-how) which is

produced and reproduced by the capitalist education system and a number of ISAs.

Thus, the state’s institutions and apparatuses such as the school, church, police, and army

are based on the concept: reproduction of submission to the ruling ideology for the workers and

41
reproduction of the ideology of exploitation and repression for state agents (Althusser, 1984 pp

7). This knowledge, which is diffused in every level of capitalist social formation, is the

precondition for the function of the “division of labour”, i.e. the systematized exploitation and

expansion of the capital. On this basis, then, any social subject learns how to be competent in his

institutional role. For example, a student at university learns all the necessary skills in order to be

competent and in consequence cost-effective for his destined job at a company or how to be an

effective and submissive state servant. Moreover, a student at university learns how to manipulate

his subordinate workers and how to respect his superordinate managers. At the university also the

students learn all the necessary skills which are designated in accordance with the demands of

corporations and firms and the rules of global market, i.e. how to use computers properly, the

language of the economy, mathematics of the market, etc. To sum up, then, the students learn

how to be competent in the context of the theoretically justified jungle anarchy of bourgeois

society, with its motto ‘every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost’ (Hobsbawm, 1962

pp. 200).

Therefore, the university and the whole educational system in capitalism, that is supposed

to distribute knowledge, is virtually the apparatus through which the capitalist conscience (the

corporative knowledge (know-how)) is reproduced and distributed within social classes. This

means that the objective of the whole educational system is to maintain the power in the hands of

a certain social class and exclude the other social class from this power. We need here just one

example for justifying this thesis: a child of a poor labor-class family, which lacks the required

funds for a private education, i.e. private university, has no other opportunity than to follow his

social class/social status fate. This means that the child lacks a priori the minimum entrance fee

for the bourgeoisie world, i.e. for higher education which ensuring his academic skills and

vocational competency. Therefore, a child of a typical labor-class family lacks a priori the

opportunity for class elevation and labor evolution in higher administrative posts since they are

occupied by ruling class’s agents.

42
 Thus, class segregation is diffused in every level of social formation in such a way as to

be reproduced the class society by systematized functions. This is the way in which the social

classes are reproduced within history and therefore the way in which the capitalist relations of

exploitation are reproduced. In brief, then, this is how the capitalist relations of production are

ensured and social exclusion is reproduced. This is how in the last analysis the class society is

reproduced. Remember that Mao Zedong distinguished two kinds of human beings; a bourgeoise

human nature and a proletarian human nature (Foucault, 1991b pp 46-47). To sum up, this is how

it works, i.e. the capitalist system of production, and in the context of this mode of production the

social practice of the individual is determined a priori by the structure rather than by his personal

free-will. This is how ultimately the capitalist chain of production works and according to this

process the concept of the “division of labor” is what secures in the last instance the capitalist

conditions/relations of production.

Thus, all the above mentioned allow us to propose the following thesis: whatever deviates

from this process of production, i.e. whatever threatens the established socio-political order is

inimical to production and therefore economically detrimental for the ruling class which is the

surplus-value earner. Thus, whatever deviates from the capitalist mode of production, it must be

harmonized according to the establish order or must be excluded, i.e. the birth of the prison. How,

then, is the submission of labour power to this order secured? State power is in the hands of the

ruling class and is exerted over the subordinate class by the state apparatus. This means that it is

exerted by some particularly repressive institutions such as the police, army, courts, and prison

and by some other ideological institutions such as school, church and family. The role of these

institutions then is to transmit the orders, apply them, and punish people who do not obey.

Thus, children at school learn not only the rules of respect for the socio-technical division

of labor, but also the rules of respect for the established order, i.e. the day schedule, the working

hours, the obedience, the submission, the subjection, the discipline, the punishment. In the same

way, a child in a family learns from infancy the rules of good behaviour (socialization process),

43
i.e. the attitude that should be observed by his family, teachers, agents, etc. An individual at

church, also, learns how to be a good Christian (at least in the Western world), i.e. how to be a

good peasant, and therefore to love and fear the Lord and not to take away neighbor’s property

and money (Hobsbawm, 1962 pp 201), and to turn the other cheek to whoever strikes first

(Althusser, 1984 pp 28). In the same way, when the individual then has grown up, the economic

state apparatuses take control over an individual’s freedom through banking accounts, bank loans,

credit cards…but there is no need to go on. What we need here is only an example for justifying

our thesis: a student at university who failed to pay an installment at the bank runs the risk of

losing his studies or a worker who failed to pay an installment at the bank runs the risk of losing

his property. Moreover, both run the risk of facing a court sentence decision and even a prison

sentence. Remember that everything in capitalism is determined by the economy and therefore

none of these concepts have a history or value. They are just the required means for maintaining

the labour class’s subjection and in consequence the required means for reproduction of capitalist

conditions of production, i.e. capital accumulation in the hands of the ruling class. To sum up,

then, the individual in capitalist system learns through a number of institutions how to obey, to

maintain discipline, and to be punished. Otherwise, the repressive state apparatuses undertake to

put the disobedient individual on trial and subsequently to send him to prison. It is not an

accident, then, that the institutions of the prison and police first emerged during early capitalism

and today have an increasingly repressive role. We shall not go into the analysis of these concepts

now, it is enough to have mentioned.

However, the reader will not have failed to note here one thing. How, then, do individuals

from labour-class succeed in occupying any administrative posts? They do that on the following

basis: the ruling class has organized the social borders between classes in such a way as to be

allowed a minimum class mobility, i.e. a few individuals from the labour-class have the

opportunity to enter into the bourgeoisie domain and in the reverse way a few individuals from

the bourgeois class are deflected into the proletarian class. This is why occasionally upper-class

44
individuals are sentenced to prison (as we shall see later on Chapter VI) and some lower-class’s

individuals occupy higher posts in administration. But such phenomena should be conceptualized

only at the individual level and not at the class level, and as merely phenomena in the context of

internal contradictions of the ruling-class. Remember once again that the capitalist system is

willing to sacrifice a part of its administrators in order to secure its cost-effectiveness and

therefore its own reproduction. Moreover, such phenomena take place on the basis that the

capitalist system has to justify itself as a just and free regime full of chances for everyone. But

beyond these tricks lies the exceptional invention of modern capitalism i.e. the bourgeoisie

dream. This concept has a double character in mature capitalism. Firstly, the bourgeois dream

gives to the proletariat a raison d'etre for the sake of which it is worthwhile to work and struggle

in order to become a bourgeois member. Secondly, the bourgeois dream (see the American

dream) operates on behalf of the bourgeois class as a shield of protection over and against

proletariat revolutions.

So far we have discussed the productive forces but not the reproduction of the existing

relations of production. Let us now see how the existing relations of production are secured. Let

us begin with the fundamental thesis of Althusser that for the most part the reproduction of the

relations of production is secured by the superstructure, i.e. by the legal-political and ideological

superstructure. It is important to emphasize once again that the state, i.e. the state of the ruling

class, has at its disposal state power and exercise it in the state apparatus. State power is exercised

massively and predominantly by the ISA, which is protected by the shield of RSA. Thus, the RSA

ensures by force the required political conditions for the reproduction through ISA of the

relations of production, i.e. the existing relations of exploitation. How, then, are the relations of

exploitation secured? They are secured by everyday social practice of social subjects, i.e. by

Ideology. For Althusser, “ideology is: the system of the ideas and representations which

dominate the mind of a man or a social group” (Althusser, 1984 pp. 32). Given, therefore, that

the social practice produces ideology, we can say that for the most part the ruling class ensures

45
the relations of exploitation by imposing the dominant ideology (the ideology of the ruling class)

on subordinate class.

By what means, however, does the ideology reproduce the capitalist relations of

exploitation? The French revolution brought among other things the secularization of bourgeois

ideology. The Church (the religious ideological apparatus) which was with the Family apparatus

the dominant ideological apparatus of feudal aristocracy was replaced with a new one, the School.

The secularization of the masses signaled the end of traditionalism and that in turn brought a new

cataclysmic ideology, Utilitarianism. The new bourgeois world, with its capitalist notion, i.e. a

purely utilitarian system, had need then of a new mass ideological means in order to enforce the

dominant ideology over the labour power and therefore to ensure the submission of the working-

class. (Hobsbawm, 1962 pp 200) The School (the educational ideological apparatus) is the

apparatus which produces, maintains, and reproduces the capitalist ideology, i.e. the submission

to the ruling class and respect for socio-technical division of labor and established behavioral

order, within classes eight hours a day for five or six days out of seven (Althusser, 1984 pp 30).

Let us now see from the standpoint of view of another conscious Marxist the role of educational

ideological apparatus in capitalist social formation.

VIII. ON EDUCATION

For Gramsci, the state school system was always of central importance as regards

dialectical materialism. For the Marxist philosophy, dialectical materialism is defined as the

production of knowledge, i.e. the process of thought within history (Poulantzas, 1978 pp 11). In

Gramsci’s view, the hegemonic culture, i.e. the culture of the ruling class, is the domain in which

the values (ethical and practical) of the dominant class became the common sense values of entire

society. Gramsci borrowed the concept of hegemony by Lenin and applied it in his manuscripts in

46
order to demonstrate how the ruling class maintains its control over the subjective class. For

Gramsci, the bourgeois class maintains its control over the proletariat class not only by enforcing

through violence and politico-economical coercion the established social order, but also

ideologically, i.e. by enforcing the hegemonic culture (Gramsci, 1988 pp 70-71, 189-190).

The State is the “sphere of the complex superstructures”: political, legal, and cultural

(Gramsci, 1988 p 189). For Gramsci, the hegemonic culture, i.e. the consensus culture, is

fundamental to the maintenance of power in the hands of the ruling class. In Gramsci’s view, the

modern state consists of a variety of alliances and forces which both constitute the historical

block. This block forms the basis of consent to the established social order and it is what in

consequence produces and reproduces the cultural hegemony of the dominant class through a

nexus of institutions and social relations, which in turn secure the domination of the bourgeoisie

over the proletariat (Gramsci, 1988 pp 193). This means that for the most part, in the context of

mature capitalism, capitalist production relations are secured by the superstructure, i.e. hegemony

culture, ideological apparatus, politico-legal apparatus.

For Gramsci there are a number of problems with organization and with the criteria

which inform the modern educational system. Modern schools have become, incubators of little

monsters aridly trained for a job, with no general ideas, no general culture, but only an infallible

eye and a firm hand (Gramsci, 1988 pp 64). The bourgeois-paternalistic model of teaching has

become a matter of handing out encyclopedic knowledge, i.e. bits of knowledge according to

production demands. Gramsci believed to a school able to provide workers with an education in

the humanities rather than just vocational training. In fact, Gramsci believed in an educational

opportunity and provision, i.e. compulsory, free, and lay education, for working-class and peasant

children able to provide workers with critical thinking rather than just pedantry (Gramsci, 1988

pp 54).

However, an educational system aimed to dispense critical thinking was always a specter

for the bourgeois class, because through it workers and peasants could develop a critical

47
understanding of their own situation, i.e. develop the necessary class consciousness for social

revolution. For Georg Lukács, the proletariat's class consciousness is the result of a permanent

struggle to understand the “concrete totality” of the historical process. Lukács believed that

ideology is in practice a projection of the class consciousness of the bourgeoisie, which functions

to prevent the proletariat from attaining a real consciousness of its revolutionary position

(revolutionary praxis) (Lukács, 1923 pp 46-83).

Thus, the bourgeois-paternalistic model of education is in Gramsci’s view a rigidly

bourgeois affair. The upper tiers received disproportionate funding against the general and

technical schools which are primarily designated for the proletarians (Gramsci, 1988 pp 53).

Gramsci believed that children from all classes and backgrounds should be equal before

education and culture. However, children of the proletariat are excluded from upper tiers on the

basis of the present socio-economical conditions, i.e. the continually rising entrance fee and the

imperative need for wage-labour. On the other hand, middle and high schools, despite that they

are paid for by proletarians through state taxes, are primarily designated for children of the

bourgeoisie who enjoy the economic independence needed for uninterrupted studies (Gramsci,

1988 pp 62-63).

Gramsci believed in a school able to elevate the unenlightened masses, i.e. Schools of

Labour as a means for liberating the masses through class consciousness from the bourgeoisie

chains. The state school is aimed to force the child’s will and knowledge rather that to develop

his awareness. The state school is aimed solely at the art of production rather than at liberal arts.

The state university is concerned only with industry production, pedantry, and intelligence. The

state university has been transformed into an incubator which is solely aimed at tomorrow man-

machine, “…bourgeois industrialists might prefer to have workers who are more machines than

men...the bureaucracy has murdered production” (Gramsci, 1988 pp 60-64).

48
IX. CONCLUDING COMMENTS

As we have hitherto seen, for the Marxist tradition, the State is the official means by

which the ruling class expresses and exercises its power over the subordinate class. The ruling

class maintains its control over the subordinate class by the State, which is the institutional means

by which the bourgeois class appropriates the interests of the proletariat class. The State, which is

the state of the ruling class, has at its disposal the State Apparatus and State Power. State Power

maintains power relations by exercising its power in State Apparatus. The State Apparatus

exercises its power by repression and ideology. RSA (violence), i.e. the justice system as a whole

(law, prison, courts, etc) maintains by repression and violence the social order which is necessary

for the capitalist conditions of production (established order). ISA (consent), i.e. the ideological

state apparatus (education, mass media, etc) forms according to the ruling class’s best interests

the material ideology and hegemony culture which is necessary for the maintenance of the

capitalist conditions of production. By those means the bourgeois class keeps the proletariat class

in a disadvantage position, i.e. in a constant state of proletarianization.

To that end, therefore, we sum up that the State is the power political apparatus whereby

the bourgeois class forms and maintains the required conditions for the exploitation of the

proletariat class. Power relations, i.e. relations between exploiter and exploited, are what ensures

the relations of exploitation and in consequence the capitalist conditions of production. Proletariat

exploitation is in consequence what produces the unequal distribution of material wealth in

society and economic power is what divides societies into classes (class segregation). In class

society, according to the Marxist tradition, social exclusion as a consequence of material wealth

inequality between social classes is what in the last analysis excludes a certain class from power

and in consequence from economic power and it is what ultimately turns this class to crime as a

means of survival and rebellion.

49
 In economically and politically stratified societies the legal system can be understood as

deriving from the social conflicts between the bourgeois class and the proletariat class with crime

as a response to that oppression. Hence, because the ruling class is sovereign the law can be used

in such a way as to reflect the interests of the ruling elite. On the other hand, the proletariat class

struggles for its rights by anomie. Godelier believed that society is like a cake. The basic layers

are the economic relations on which are erected the garniture of beliefs and values. Few eat with

golden spoons, others eat the crumbs, and the rest wash the dishes (Godelier, 1986 pp 128). Thus,

the justice system is to be considered as a state institution which has as its object to maintain and

dispense justice in an a priori unjust society. It is unjust on the basis that economic power,

political power, wealth and prestige are all unequally distributed within society. Thus, the

working class has to reproduce its social role in society, which is that of the labour power.

Otherwise, the legal system, as a means of proletarianization, undertakes to restore the

established social order which is necessary for the capitalist conditions of production, i.e.

proletarians have to choose between obedience and punishment. In the last analysis the whole

working class has two possibilities: to strive to become bourgeois (obedience) or to turn to

anomie (disobedience). Note here that for proletarians anomie is in many cases a way to wriggle

out of the proletarianization process. The process of socialization, then, is different for

proletarians and bourgeois. The members of the proletariat class, on the basis of their economic

dependence on the ruling class, learn from infancy to obey the ruling class rules (to be observed,

disciplined, and punished), i.e. develop self control through learning to obey authority which is

accepted as legitimate (sovereign). The concept of civil obedience, therefore, is directly related to

wage labour (exploitation) and is determined according to the ruling class interests (socio-

economic division of labour) (Arendt, 1972 pp 69-81)

In Marxist theory, criminal activities are raised either by economic motives (destitution)

or alienation of the human nature. In fact, in complex capitalist societies both are in a constant

state of interplay. However, it is not only the economy that gives rise to criminogenic conditions.

50
Individualism, demoralization, and materialism of the industrial capitalist society (commodity

fetishism, i.e. social relationships centre around the values placed on commodities) are what cause

the increasing criminality. Note that alienation and demoralization are epiphenomena of the

materialism of the modern industrial life. Thus, for the Marxist tradition, alienation is not human

attribute, but, on the contrary, like crime, it is a consequence of the social environment in which

human beings realize their essence. Therefore, dominant capitalist values such as the power of

capital, competition, avarice, and individualism are all concepts which are social in origin and

derive from economic power and power relations. The capitalist society, in the last analysis, is in

practice, “a relation of alienation of man from his objectified essence, as well as an economic

expression of human self-alienation” (I. I. Rubin’s, 1908, pp. 163-4).

To conclude, Marxist criminology is the school of thought that is based on a structural

reading of society and oriented to a holistic perspective regarding the issue of crime in capitalism.

Remember that in Marxist theory crime is inherent in social structure and inevitable in capitalist

social formation, i.e. crime is social in origin and a normal response to prevailing cultural

capitalist conditions. Given, therefore, that man in capitalist society is defined by his relationship

to the means of production, i.e. in class society man is defined by his position in the class scale

(Marx, 1845 pp 76) and given that man is above all mind (a product of history), i.e. a product of a

given historical condition insofar that his consciousness is totally determined by the social

structure (Gramsci, 1988 pp 57) we can conclude that: proletarians on the basis of their economic

dependence on the bourgeois class coupled with the lack of goods, alienation, demoralization,

individualism, materialism and violence are what inevitably turn them to crime in order to feed

their needs and addictions. Thus, whatever deviates from the capitalist process of production, i.e.

whatever threatens the established socio-political order, is inimical to production and therefore

economically detrimental for the ruling class and in consequence it should be proletarianized

(discipline) or excluded (punishment). The justice system in capitalism is nothing but an

apparatus of proletarianization. For Marx, the state as a whole in capitalist society is a bourgeois

51
state: “it is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie…

its standards of justice, democracy and right are bourgeois standards” (Marx and Engels, 1848

pp 223).

52
 CHAPTER IV

POWER

 “...It would be hypocritical or naive to believe that the law was made for all in the name of all; that it
would be more prudent to recognize that it was made for the few and that it was brought to bear upon
others; that in principle it applies to all citizens, but that it is addressed principally to the most numerous
and least enlightened classes...” 
Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, 1975:276

“For the observation that prison fails to eliminate crime, one should perhaps substitute the hypothesis
that prison has succeeded extremely well introducing delinquency, a specific type, a politically or
economically less dangerous -and on occasion, usable- form of illegality; in producing delinquents, in
an apparently marginal, but in fact centrally supervised milieu; in producing the delinquent as a
pathologized subject” 
Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, 1975: 277

“The prison is the reverse image of society, an image turned into a threat. This is what society is. You
can’t criticize me since I only do what you do every day at the factory and the school. So I am innocent.
I am only the expression of a social consensus”
Michel Foucault, Power: essential works of Foucault 1954-1984, 2001: 85

I. INTRODUCTION

The French philosopher, Michel Foucault, was one of the most influential thinkers of the

20th Century. His books gave people a new way to view power relations as well as a number of

epiphenomena of power, such as the prison system, disciplinary institutions, biopower, etc. His

studies on crime, madness, and sexuality through the analysis of truth and reason, knowledge and

power relations, have stimulated debates over traditional social institutions. For Foucault, the

issue of power-knowledge was always of central importance as regards the subjugation of bodies

and the control of populations.

Despite the fact that he was deeply influenced by the Marxist tradition (structuralism),

however, we can say that Foucault approached the issue of power outside institutional models,

i.e. the state, the legal models. This is not to say, of course, that Foucault does not recognize the

importance of the structure or deny the importance of institutions, but, rather, he tried to examine

53
social institutions on the basis of power relations. Foucault studied social phenomena in

Nietzschean terms. In a sense, Foucault brought Nietzsche to the aid of Marx (Foucault, 2001 pp

xiv). Thus, his approach could neither be characterized as solely based on structuralism, nor on

behaviourism, but, in a sense, it could be described as a poststructuralist/postmodernist view.

Foucault's methodological approach is based on an attempt to define the domains in which and by

which power is exercised. That is, the domains in which the construction of the individual as an

object is realized, i.e. the objectification and subjugation of the individual on the one hand and the

individualization of the subject on the other.

II. KNOWLEDGE

It is important to begin by emphasizing that Foucault, in practice, tried to create from the

standpoint of power relations a history of social institutions, such as the penal institution, the

medical institution, the pedagogical institution, and the industrial institution which emerged at the

end of the 18th century and consolidated in the course of the 19 th century, in order to show how

domains of knowledge (in which the individual as the subject of knowledge is objectified)

brought a network of new concepts, ideas, and institutions in which the objectification and

subjugation of the individual as the subject of an utterly new type of knowledge take place

(Foucault, 2001 pp 2).

Foucault was primarily interested in understanding the link between power and

knowledge. Foucault believed that domains of knowledge are what define in each era the

intersubjectively acceptable truth. This truth in turn legitimises the power and its disciplinary

techniques which are exercised over subjects through a specific form of knowledge within

institutions. Foucault’s objective was to show, through a historical analysis of the different modes

by which an individual turns into a subject, how at the end of the 18 th century and in the course of

the 19th century an utterly new type of knowledge-power emerged in Western society. It is in the

54
central historical thesis of Foucault that we can find that social practices engender domains of

knowledge which in turn engender new forms of subjects of knowledge (Foucault, 2001 pp 1).

This new form of knowledge, which engendered on the basis of social practice and circulated in

society through a network of institutions (which were based on the concept power-knowledge)

with the form of truth, was able not only to induce power, but, also, to engender subjects of

power. Foucault believed that “the subject of knowledge itself has a history; the relation of the

subject to the object; or more clearly, truth itself has a history” (Foucault, 2001 pp2). For

Foucault, the subject is structured on the basis of the accepted truth and reason, knowledge and

power relations of a given era. That is, the subject is, in a sense, a product of power-knowledge.

This is what Foucault names “the regime of knowledge”, i.e. the reciprocal relation between

power-knowledge and subject. In other words, the way in which power-knowledge circulates,

functions, and forms the subject in society (Foucault, 2001 pp 331).

This new form of knowledge brought in modern society new objects, new concept, and

new techniques through which the exercise of power was then possible. The exercise of power

through this new form of knowledge brought as well a number of new concepts about man, such

as the normal and the abnormal, the mad and the sane, the sick and the healthy, and finally the

criminals and the “good boys” (Foucault, 2001 pp 327). It is in the context of this new form of

power-knowledge that the individual turns into a subject caught in relations of power (Foucault,

2001 pp xvi). In fact, it is in the context of this new form of power-knowledge (which emerged

from the capitalist times onwards by the bourgeois class) that we can find the historical

justification for the emergence in the course of the 18 th and 19th century of a number of

institutions which were established and organised on this basis, i.e. “knowledge of power and

power of knowledge” (Foucault, 2001 pp xv).

Foucault believed that there is a respective relation between power-knowledge-subject.

To put it in somewhat clearer terms, we would say that the exercise of power perpetually

produces certain forms of knowledge, or, conversely, the constant imposition of knowledge

55
creates and reproduces certain forms of power. Thus, the perpetual exercise of a specific form of

power creates a certain form of knowledge; in turn, the perpetual circulation and function of this

knowledge in society produce discourses of truth, the exercise of which finally fixes the limits to

the rights of power (Foucault, 2001 pp xvi). To put it more schematically, it is the

intersubjectively accepted truth (reason) which develops to control the concept of madness and

uses it to redefine reason. The same could be said about the abnormal, the sick, and the criminal;

they are all judged on the basis of what is socially defined as normal, healthy, and legal. Law

must simply shield what is defined as useful for society. In Foucaudian terms, then, madness

became the antithesis of reason, normal became the antithesis of abnormal, and criminal the

antithesis of the good boy. It is on this basis that can be traced the emergence of a number of

mostly repressive institutions which were mainly intended not only to punish, ban and exclude

what was widely accepted as abnormal, but, also, to protect what was considered as normal for

bourgeoisie. In fact, prison emerged as a machine of proletarianization, i.e. intended for those

who were not willing to transform their selves into productive forces (Foucault, 2001 pp 85).

All these institutions were intended to impose certain types of behaviour, to mould

characters, to dictate conducts, and govern actions. Actually, they were primarily intended to

impose those types of behaviour which were most productive for the bourgeois class, i.e.

behaviours which could be cost-effective for the economic system. Therefore, such institutions

like prison had no other role to play into the social system than to function symbolically and

exemplarily. It was a possible threat to the rioters, the unemployed people, the alcoholics, and the

idlers. In a sense, it was an institution intended to all those who were not ready to harmonize with

the norms which have been imposed to labour-power. Its role was essentially paradigmatic rather

than truly economic, penal, or corrective (Foucault, 2001 pp 85). In Foucaudian terms, it was a

way of guaranteeing production.

Of course, we are thinking to all those repressive institutions, which were all based on the

exercise of power through instruments of knowledge with the form of supervision and which

56
aimed to negate and subjugate the body, repress the unenlightened masses, and take control over

the population. These are: the penal system, the mental system, the pedagogical system, and the

industrial system. All of them were organised on the same basis, in the same way, shared the

same principles and characteristics, used the same techniques, and had interrelated objects. The

object of the new disciplinary society, which emerged as an epiphenomenon of radical economic

transitions which took place at the end of the 18 th century and the beginning of the 19 th century,

was then that: the subjugation of the individual’s time and body. They were all institutions that, in

a certain way, aimed at controlling people’s time in order to transform it into labour time and

individual’s body in order to transform it into productive force.

III. POWER

For Foucault, in Discipline and Punish (1975), power is exercised with intention.

However, what is important to analyse for Foucault it is neither who has power, nor what

intentions one has, but, on the contrary, it is more essential to examine what is regarded as

accepted knowledge, how it is exercised, and finally by what techniques this knowledge is

exercised by power. That is, what must be done is an analysis at the point where its intention is

concentrated, i.e. its field of application (Foucault, 1980 pp 97). What Foucault tried to do

through the historical analysis of the prison system, mental institutions, factory institutions, and

convents, was to show the ways in which the individual, as that creature who is subjected to

power relations, in the context of modern disciplinary institutions turns into a subject who is to be

trained, corrected, supervised, and controlled (Foucault, 2001 pp xvi). An individual’s conduct in

our modern society, under modern disciplinary conditions, and in the context of a new

surveillance regime, is subject to pervasive supervision and constant normalization.

To put it more clearly, in capitalist industrialized societies our conduct is caught in a

complex institutionally and constitutionally disciplinary network aimed at preventing and

57
correcting deformities. That was Bentham’s dream, a network of mechanisms that would be

everywhere and always alert running through society. The birth of the disciplinary society

brought, inter alia, a number of surveillance and disciplinary techniques which emerged as a

result of the new technological regime of power-knowledge, i.e. supervision-control-correction,

and through which the exercise of power over the individual was then possible (Foucault, 2001

pp 70). Before we go into the analysis of Bentham’s panoptic society it is first necessary to grasp

the essentials of Foucault’s studies on power.

Power is a relation. This is the central postulation of Foucault’s studies about power

(Foucault, 1991b pp 170). Let us begin by analysing this thesis. Given that power is a relation, we

can say that power as such cannot be possessed or challenged by an individual or a class

(Foucault, 2001 pp 171). On the contrary, power exists only in the form of action, i.e. power

exists only as exercised by some on others. In fact, power is in a constant state of circulation,

indeed, it must be in a form of continuous circulation in order to exist. To put it somewhat

differently, power is an ensemble of actions that bring into play power relations between

individuals, groups, and classes (Foucault, 2001 pp 337-338). What characterises power,

therefore, is that presupposes a relation. However, Foucault’s interest is concentrated not in the

institutional establishment of power relations, but, on the contrary, in the forms, the means, the

ways, and the techniques within which power is concentrated and by which power is exercised.

Thereby, Foucault tried to show the techniques of individualization, i.e. the techniques,

the means, and the mechanisms which turn the modern individual into a subject. It is a central

thesis of Foucault (1991b) that the modern practice of power is what produces the

individualization and objectification of human beings. Indeed, it is in the context of the modern

state the establishment and consolidation of a number of complex structures and institutions

which were based on individualization techniques and totalization procedures (Foucault, 2001 pp

332). For Foucault, the modern state is a political structure, or more clearly, a network of power

institutions which can exercise their power over subjects by an individualizing and a totalizing

58
form of power. However, it seems to Foucault more important to analyse the social body not only

on the basis of structures, but, also, from the standpoint of individualizing power.

It is on this basis that Foucault (1991b) provides us with the following two statements.

The first one is that power relation is an action upon an action, i.e. power is an action over the

actual or possible actions of others. The second one is that power is the formulation of the field of

others possible actions, i.e. power is the way in which an action may structure the possible field

of action of others (Foucault, 2001 pp 343). The exercise of power as such, therefore, means to

govern the conduct and behaviour of others through the management of the possible field of

action of others. It must be underlined that the exercise of power puts into operation a set of

actions upon others’ actions in order to define their future actions. Power then is carried out not at

the level of what one does, but of what one is. That is, power does not care about what one does,

but what one might do (Foucault, 2001 pp 71).

Foucault was primarily concerned on the how of power, i.e. how power is exercised. That

is, by what means, techniques, and mechanisms power and the power of punishment and

discipline are exercised. Foucault was particularly interested in the rules of right through which

power is defined as legitimate (justice) and on the truth that this power produces (accepted truth).

This truth in turn is what fix limits to the rights of power and reproduces the power as legitimate.

This triangle, therefore, of: power, justice, and truth, is in a sense the subject-matter of Foucault’s

studies (Foucault, 1980 pp 93).

Figure 4.1: Foucault's triangle of power

Truth Power

Justice

59
 It is well-known that the arrival of capitalism brought a well-organised economic

apparatus whose essential function was to control the labour-power and improve its function.

That is, to reduce the damages, to maximise the extraction of labour-time and to accumulate the

profit/capital through the former. Given, therefore, that individuals had become a force of

production, all the forms of its expenditure which did not lend themselves to the constitution of

the productive forces were banned-excluded-repressed (Foucault, 1980 pp 100). The human

body, then, which value had started to be measured in monetary terms and in man-hours, should

be able to maximise its capacity and production as well as to secure its optimal state. To put it

somewhat differently, the capitalist economic system in order to secure the bourgeois class’s best

interests initiated a number of mechanisms whose main objective was to subjugate labourer’s

bodies, dictate their behaviours, govern their actions and correct any deformities which might be

economically detrimental. Of course, this is quite true to a certain extent. However, what needs to

be done for Foucault is something quite different.

Actually, what must be done is a reverse reading of all these institutions which emerged

since Medieval times and consolidated in the course of the 18 th and 19th century. There is no

doubt that this new form of power-knowledge and its application within disciplinary institutions

emerged under the domination of the bourgeois class. However, for Foucault (1980) it is more

important to analyse historically and beginning from the lowest level, neither the institutional role

of power-knowledge as such, nor its possession by the dominant class (bourgeoisie), but, on the

contrary, how this form of power-knowledge on the basis of its logic and as a response to a

certain number of socio-economic needs emerged? How was it exercised? By what techniques

was it exercised? How, in the last analysis, power-knowledge and its effects became part of the

economic system of production? How, that is, the regime of power-knowledge brought a network

of disciplinary and repressive institutions such as the prison, the asylum, the factory, and the

school as well as a number of new concepts such as the insane, the criminal, and the abnormal? In

the last analysis, how this form of power-knowledge, which was formulated on the basis of a new

60
economic nature and as a historical consequence of its, begun to produce a new way of seeing the

individual, i.e. the individual as subject, or more clear, the individual as object? Or even better, in

response to what socio-economic needs the exercise of power-knowledge by bourgeoisie in such

a way and through these techniques and institutions have begun to become economically

advantageous for the economic system? What, in practice, Foucault intended to do through the

historical analysis of mechanisms of power and its functions within society, it was to show how

this new form of power-knowledge began to become economically profitable and politically

beneficial for the bourgeois class. For Foucault, power relations are integral to the modern social

productive apparatus and as such have become the domains which articulate in practice its

function. Let us now see, then, how at the end of the 18 th century and in the course of the 19 th

century a modern disciplinary society emerged as a response to a new socio-economical

formation.

IV. DISCIPLINARY SOCIETY

The judicial system of the 18 th and 19th century was primarily characterised by the

theoretical reformations of Cesare de Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. Theoretical reworking of

penal law came about as a response to the new economico-political transformation of industrial

society. In the Middle Ages the penal justice system was defined by the state and its agencies.

The emergence, however, of modern forms of penal practice as a result of new forms of power-

knowledge which developed on the basis of the new industrial society of the 18 th and 19th century

brought in effect a new disciplinary society (Foucault, 2001 pp 53). Of course, that social change

had need of reform and reorganisation of the judicial system as a whole. The constitution of the

new judicial system should be based then on the new form of economico-political society of the

19th century and must represent what was useful for the social body. It is in that era that we find

the appearance of a new perception of crime and the criminal. Crime started to be considered as

61
harmful for the social body while the criminal was that individual who has broken the social

contract and therefore was a social enemy. Society, then, had need of a reformed judicial system

able to define as reprehensible what is harmful to society, that is, to provide a clear definition of

crime, what constitutes a punishable action, and how then the criminal should be punished

(Foucault, 2001 pp 54). Moreover, penal law must provide a legal framework able to repair the

harm caused to society as well as to provide legal mechanisms able to prevent similar future

harms. That could be achieved only by repairing the harm that was caused to the social body.

That is, by punishment.

Foucault, in the book “Dits et ecrits: 1954-1988” (1999) distinguishes and classifies, in a

historical order, four certain types of punishment according to their age, their objectives, and the

ways by which were exercised. Firstly, there are societies which exile, deport, or banish (ancient

Greek society) on the basis that the criminal deliberately has broken the social compact and

therefore he does not deserves to belong anymore to the social body. Secondly, there are societies

which impose penalties with the form of compensation or forced labour (German societies) in

order the criminal to compensate or repair the social damage. Thirdly, there are societies which

stigmatise the criminal (Western societies of the Middle ages) by provoking shame, humiliation,

or amputation. Lastly, there are societies, like ours, which ensure that the harm would not be done

again by retaliation and incarceration of the criminal (Foucault, 1999 pp 71).

However, what really occurred in penal practice of the 19 th century was something

different from the theoretical principles of Beccaria and Bentham about the penal code. At the

end of the 18th and at the beginning of the 19 th century and almost without any theoretical

justification appeared the prison. It is in the context of the tremendous shift of penal legislation

and penal practice that we found the social utility of prison as that penalty which no longer

focused on what was socially useful, but, on the contrary, targeted the individual (Foucault, 2001

pp 56). The principle that guided the penal system which developed in the 19 th century in France,

England, and other European countries was that of undertaking control over the individual’s

62
behaviour, attitude, and practice. The new penal justice system was not aimed anymore at

protecting society from criminals or preventing them from re-offending, but, on the contrary, at

targeting the individual’s future conducts. Remember that power-knowledge of that age was

concentrated in behavioural potentialities. That is, justice system aimed not at emphasising on the

individual’s actions, but, on what he was capable of doing, as a means of ensuring the control of

individuals, the governing of their minds and the subjugation of their bodies. The penal institution

then was not anymore interested at the level of the violation of law by the individual, but, at the

behavioural potentialities and dangerousness that the individual was capable of possessing

(Foucault, 2001 pp 56).

The control, however, over the individual’s behaviour, at the level of his potentialities,

was not able to be managed solely by the judicial system itself. This network of para-judicial

agencies, institutions, and mechanisms such as the police, mental institution, pedagogical

institution, prison, factory, was intended to perform functions on behalf of the justice system.

That is, of correcting, controlling, and supervising the individual’s conduct. In other words, they

were aimed at defining the individual’s possible field of action. Foucault, here, enters the age of

generalised social control (Foucault, 2001 pp 57). A gigantic mechanism which consisted of a

number of judicial and non-judicial agencies aimed at the supervision of social life. We are

referring of course of Jeremy Bentham’s panoptic society. A sort of institution, or even better, a

form of architecture, that makes possible the exercise of power with the form of mind-over-mind

(Foucault, 2001 pp 58). A form of power which would be possible to be exercised in the same

way equally well in prisons, mental houses, hospitals, schools, and factories. The utopia of

Bentham’s Panopticon, that is, an institution with such architecture as to be able the gaze of the

observer to traverse the whole space, was then realized. Contemporary society is actually a

disciplinary society, a society where panopticism reigns (Foucault, 2001 pp 58). Panopticon, then,

brought something utterly different. The aim was not anymore the inquiry, but the supervision

and examination of the individual. A generalised control of society, since the gaze of king was

63
able to scan every corner of society, to penetrate the individual’s mind, to correct the individual’s

behaviour. That came about at every level of social life in the form of a constant supervision of

individuals by everyone who was able to exercise an institutional power over them. Thereby, we

have the emergence of a complex network of supervisors and subjects such as schoolteacher-

student, foreman-worker, prison warden-prisoner, etc (Foucault, 2001 pp 60).

Thus, in contrast to the knowledge-power of the inquiry, which prevailed in the Middle

Ages, an altogether different form of power-knowledge which was based on supervision and

examination emerged at the end of the 18 th and the beginning of the 19th century. That form of

examination, which was characterised by a series of mechanisms of control of the population’s

behaviour, attitude, and features, was what Foucault named bio-power. Actually, it was a

systematised attempt of evaluating and quantifying human characteristics with the uppermost

object the correction of them and the adaptation of them according to industrial production. It was

what Foucault called social orthopaedics (Foucault, 2001 pp 60). This utterly new penal practice

was directly related of course with the new economic form of production of industrial society. Let

us now see how that capitalist economic system of the 18 th and 19th century had need then of such

disciplinary practices of supervision, panopticism, and correction in order to ensure its existence.

To put it somewhat clearer, let us now examine what was the motivating factor that led the penal

system of that age to undergo that shift in order to meet the new socio-economic needs.

We observe at the beginning of the 18 th century a number of groups of persons to be

organised on the basis of maintaining the socio-political order and creating new instruments for

its maintenance (Foucault, 2001 pp 61). These groups were primarily motivated by religious

groups and as such their aim was that of controlling social behaviour of individuals and

correcting it according to Christian manners. Such groups were primarily interested in

undertaking control over the socially maladjusted individuals. That is, they were aimed at give an

end to debauchery, drunkenness, and the vices which were all detrimental to social body and

production. We are referring, here, the production, because it is in that era that we can find the

64
coincidence of interests between religion and economy. To put it more clearly, it is in the context

of early capitalism that we see the harmonic unity between Protestant ethic and capitalist spirit.

We see, then, a two-dimensional phenomenon which had its roots in the capitalist and religious

spirit. On the one hand, debauchery and drunkenness must be punished and corrected according

to the industrial labour needs, and, on the other hand, the religious ethic which must preserved by

imposing the religious manners on individuals.

However, toward the end of the 18 th century those groups started to be organised on the

basis of providing defence to the bourgeois class against the great social disturbances. Their role

was primarily to restore the socio-political order which was necessary for the economic

development of bourgeoisie. Of course, all these groups gradually led to adopt the form of private

well-organised police forces in order to provide security against the riots, pillage, and petty-

thievery which came about at the great urban centres (Foucault, 2001 pp 61). We observe, then, a

gradual development of these groups, which initially started with the object of preserving the

religious manners and in consequence of ensuring the social compact to end up finally to the

institution of police. Actually, the institution of police resulted as a practical need and as a natural

response to that gigantic socio-economic transformation of that age. In fact, the new form of

economic production, the great concentration of population to the towns, and the accumulation of

wealth in the form of stocks and goods in the docks and warehouses of London, Liverpool, and

Manchester, had need then of protection from proletarian revolts (Foucault, 2001 pp 62).

To sum up, then, all these groups firstly appeared as self-defence groups with the object

of suppressing vice, reforming manners, and establishing order in society. However, in the course

of the 18th century we can see a shift as regards the object of these groups from spontaneous small

religious groups which aimed at exercising moral repression, to well-organised state forces for

bringing social control under the state power (Foucault, 2001 pp 64). Thus, we can observe a

wider change from moral to penal, or even better, from religious to economic. This is not to say,

of course, that the function between of them was discernible, since both continued throughout the

65
18th and 19th century to exercise power over labour masses usually in a cooperative form.

Actually, in the course of the 19th century this moral control came under the control of the state

and gradually became an instrument of power-control exerted from the top on the bottom, that is,

from bourgeoisie to proletariat. Thus, we can understand then how at that age the great problem

of power in the great urban industrial centres was the establishment of a strong control-

mechanism which would make possible the protection of the new material form of wealth from

proletarians (Foucault, 2001 pp 69). It is on the basis of this fact the origin of disciplinary society

which emerged as a response to gigantic demographical changes and social disturbances which

resulted from the new economic system of production, capitalism.

So far we have seen the economic and political scope and impact which gave rise to the

emergence of a series of disciplinary institutions in the 18 th and 19th century which shared as their

common characteristic and primary function the continual supervision of the individual. That is,

the exercise of power and control in a disciplinary form with the uppermost object being the

correction of the individual. We have not seen, however, the actual and daily operation of those

institutions. The utopia of the prison factory society, or even better, the dream of the bourgeoisie

was actually realised (Foucault, 2001 pp 77). Of course, that happened on the basis that industrial

production system had need of labour force and then all the forms of its expenditure which would

be economically detrimental for the capital must be banned-excluded-repressed. However, at the

beginning of the 19th century we observe that the power of control shifted its attention toward a

sharper reformation. The new objective of the bourgeois class was now the imposition of a

general institutionalization of social life. The aim was not anymore the exclusion and

confinement of the individual, but, rather, its attachment to production system (Foucault, 2001 pp

78). All these institutions such as the factory, school, mental house, hospital, and prison were all

formulated and reformatted in such a way as to guaranteeing production. This means that

individuals were caught in a complex network of institutions which aimed at correcting,

66
normalizing, training, reforming, and binding lastly the individual to production apparatus

(Foucault, 2001 pp 78).

Here, we return once again to what we have called production apparatus as that network

aimed at extracting the individual’s time in order to transform it into labour time and subjugating

the individual’s body in order to put it at the disposal of the labour market and the demands of

production through disciplinary institutions and social orthopaedics. All these institutions, then,

had the same form and shared the same principles. The school, the mental house, the prison, the

factory, were all aimed at exercising a permanent supervision over the individual’s behaviour by

punishing and rewarding, evaluating and classifying conducts and attitudes (Foucault, 2001 pp

82). Imprisonment, then, as by nature exclusionary form of punishment was the last point, or even

better, the official destination of social excluded individual, of that individual who was not

willing to give up his mind, his body, his time, and lastly his will to production apparatus. Prison

was not anymore an institution aimed at the protection of society from the criminal, not even a

correctional, rehabilitative or reformative institution, but, rather, a symbolic and exemplary

institution primarily intended not so much for those who were about to serve an imprisonment as

for those who were unwilling to follow the rules and the norms of the new capitalist and

bourgeois class society.

67
 CHAPTER V

THE INDIVIDUAL

"Man is not like other animals in the ways that are really significant: Animals have instincts, we have
taxes." Erving Goffman

"Society is an insane asylum run by the inmates." Erving Goffman, Asylums: Essays on the Social
Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates (1961)

I. INTRODUCTION

Symbolic interactionism is a major sociological perspective which formulated in the 20 th

century by various social psychologists and sociologists at the University of Chicago. The

eminent tradition of social psychology, usually referred to as Chicago school, developed mainly

by the American pragmatist George Herbert Mead and somewhat later by the sociologist Herbert

Blumer -student and interpreter of Mead- who coined the term symbolic interactionism. In fact,

symbolic interactionism falls within the wider socio-psychological perspective of social

behaviourism. For social psychology, contrary to individual psychology which claims that the

self comes about as an individual experience, the self arises out of social experience as an object

of socially symbolic gestures and interactions.

II. THE NATURE OF SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

Symbolic interactionism deals with the individual’s self development from the standpoint

of social experience, or even better, with the individual’s self which belongs to social structure.

On this view, social psychologists attempt to interpret the individual’s behaviour and explain the

individual’s self as an object which arises out of everyday social interaction. The self-identity and

behaviour then of an individual is defined by his social interaction with his’ fellows. Strictly

68
speaking, the individual’s self comes about as a result of social interaction, that is, it is

determined by the social process. Social behaviourism, then, is derived from social psychology

which is concerned with the development of the individual’s self within the social field of which

he belongs and in which he develops his experience, his “inner” and “outer” behaviour. Mead

postulated that mind and self are social products and come about through social interaction

(Mead, 1967 pp 6). Social psychology, then, is behaviouristic in the sense that it attempts to

interpret the individual’s behaviour in terms of the whole social group of which he is a member

and in terms of the process of the development of his behaviour as whole, that is, the “inner” and

“outer” phase of the individual’s behaviour development.

To sum up, symbolic interactionism is that theoretical tradition which is concerned with

individuals and their social action. According to Blumer (1969) symbolic interactionism can be

summarised into three basic premises: The first premise is that human beings act toward things on

the basis of the meanings that the things have for them (Blumer, 1969 pp 2). The second premise

is that the meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one

has with one’s fellows (Blumer, 1969 pp 2). The third premise is that these meanings are handled

in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things

he encounters (Blumer, 1969 pp 2). Let us now examine, with these three basic premises on

mind, how the social individual comes to the genesis of his self through social interaction, an

interaction between actors and roles.

III. THE PLAY, THE GAME, AND THE GENERALISED OTHER

Let us now see how the human being begins his understanding of the social world

through the structures upon which his self is constructed. Mead in Mind, Self, and Society (1934)

which was written after his death by his students, postulated that the individual comes to the

development and acquisition of his self through “play” and “game”. Mead begins his analysis by

69
interpreting and parallelising the attitudes of little children in the kindergarten with the attitudes

of primitive people such as the rituals that we found in the myths (Mead 1967 pp 153). The child

takes a number of different roles which are observable in adult society and he plays them in order

to adopt them and gradually to gain a better understanding of the different social roles. For

example, the child first plays the role of policemen and then the role of thief. When the child

enters into the adult society, the latter then calls out the individual to participate in the “game”.

Through participating in the “game” the individual has to relate his conduct to that of the others.

That is, the individual has to understand the rules of the “game” and then to adapt his behaviour

according to them. The social group or social setting of which the individual is a member is what

gives to the individual his unity by involving him with others in that game. This social group or

social setting is what Mead called “the generalised other” (Mead, 1967 pp 154).

“The generalised other” involves the individuals in that social process of game by

exercising control over their conducts and behaviours. The attitude of “the generalised other”,

then, becomes the attitudes of the whole community and therefore the individuals who belong to

this community have to carry out and fulfil the expectations of their community (Mead, 1967 pp

154). “The generalised other”, then, has to be understood as that general norm which sets up the

rules of the game with which the individual’s behaviour has to conform. The individual in order

to develop his self in the fullest sense has not only to take the attitudes of other individuals, but,

also, to take the attitudes of “the generalised other” which influences the behaviour of the

individuals through the everyday interaction. The human individual, then, given that he enters

into a set of relations with other individuals which both constitute the community, takes the social

attitudes of his community. For example, the human individual, as a member of a number of

social institutions such as the family, the school, the asylum, the prison, or any other social

setting, develops his understanding in terms of the norms and rules of the group of which he is a

member according to what kind of behaviour is expected from him.

70
 Thus, we can say that the human individual does not develop his behaviour through an

inner individual process, but, rather, through an outer social process which begins from the

generalised other, from society, and ends up to the development of the individual’s behaviour. In

short, the individual’s behaviour is nothing but a reflection of the general behaviour, of the given

behaviour of society imposed on the individual. To sum up, then, the genesis of the individual’s

self comes about through two general stages. First is the constitution of the self through the

attitudes of others toward himself and toward one another and second where the individual comes

to the full development of his self through the social attitudes of “the generalised other” to which

he belongs, that is, his social community (Mead, 1967 pp 158).

IV. THE “I” AND THE “ME”

So far we have discussed the social foundation of the self. However, it is important

here to show that for Mead the self does not consist simply in the bare organization of social

attitudes (Mead, 1967 pp 173). We shall go into that postulation through the distinction between

the “I” and the “me”. For Mead, both “I” and “me” are related to social experience. The “I” is the

response of the human individual to the attitudes of the others, while the “me” is the organised set

of attitudes of others which the human individual assumes. The attitudes of the others constitute

the organised individual’s “me”, and on this basis then the individual reacts toward that as an “I”.

For Mead, the “I” is aware of the social “me” and the “me” is aware of himself as an object

(Mead, 1967 pp 173). Thus, the human individual reacts to himself on the basis of and according

to the attitude others have toward him.

The “me”, then, can be understood as the individual’s self conceived by the significant

others and his community at large. The individual’s self-appraisal is based on what the individual

assumes to be the appraisal by others. For example, if the attitude of the significant other for an

individual is that of the mentally-ill, this individual –whether he is or he is not mentally-ill

71
(because that is the belief of “the generalised other” which is raised over the individual’s self) -

then he will go unconsciously to change his attitude for himself in order to conform to the

significant other’s attitude. The same is to be if the x society believes for the y individual that is

maladjusted. On this case, the y individual unconsciously and gradually will go to change his

behaviour in order to take the attitude of maladjusted, to take the given role of maladjusted which

is imposed by “the generalised other”, and lastly to fulfil society’s expectations. Here, we enter

into the concept of “role-taking” and the discipline of social reaction theory or even better

labelling theory.

V. ROLE-TAKING

We have seen that the individual’s self arises out of social experience, that is, the

individual’s behaviour comes about through social interaction, through “play” and “game”. For

Mead (1967), children imitate roles of adult society in order to see how well they fit to them. In

the same way or similarly adults take roles from community of which are members in order to

carry out the process of social interaction. The process of role-taking comes about in an

interactive way and then the individuals led to adopt roles in creative ways trying to confirm,

reject or modifying them. For social behaviourists, the social process is in a constant state of

change-interaction and therefore social roles are constantly negotiated between individuals. A

social role, then, endows the individual who bears it with rights and obligations and it is

connected with a set of behaviours. For instance, the x individual who possesses the x social

status and the x social position (we might say in the class scale) he takes the x social role through

social interaction and role-taking process. Each role is socially defined by “the generalised other”

and bears then a set of expected behaviours for the bearer. Thus, the individual who takes the role

of the deviant comes to adapt his behaviour according to society’s expectations as regards the

attitude of deviant role or he comes to conform his behaviour to society’s norms as regards the

72
deviant model. We come then to postulate that the individual’s role and behaviour are socially

constructed and reconstructed through constant social interaction.

VI. LABELLING THEORY

Let us now see how the individual comes to the construction of his self-identity and

behaviour through his social position and therefore through his social role by how that individual

is categorised and described by others in society. It is important to bear in mind that labelling

theory is based on the linguistic tendency of majorities to negatively label and stigmatise

minorities. Erving Goffman in his seminal book Stigma (1963) shows, inter alia, how stigma has

this special property of isolating some of the individual’s characteristics from the whole of his

personality in order to label him as abnormal. Stigma is intimately associated with stereotyping

and in consequence with precarious social and personal identity. Social identity should be

considered as something that is socially constructed and reconstructed by others, rather than as

something solely constructed by one’s self, since as we have hitherto seen the individual’s self as

a whole is socially constructed. Thus, the mental patient, the member of racial minority, the

disfigured, the alcoholic, the homosexual, etc, all of them run the risk of considered socially

abnormal. Society, not as a whole, but as this organization governed by few, by those who

possess the power to call themselves normal, set up to itself norms, rules, and laws in order to

secure its well-state, in order to ensure its well-reproduction, and in order to exclude whatever

possess a threat to this normality, regularity, and orderliness. On this context, then, the

stigmatised or the negatively labelled individual find himself to the margin of society. It is on this

basis that the negatively stereotyped individual -through various social interactions- finds himself

to be labelled as deviant, lawbreaker and outsider.

Labelling theory, then, hypothesizes that negative and stigmatising labels applied to

individuals influence their behaviour to the effect that the individual who bears the label tends to

73
take the attitudes of the particular label and come to conform his behaviour to the label’s

expectations as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Each individual is aware about his social-appraisal and

how he is judged by others in society because he has attempted various roles and has been able to

gauge the reactions. This builds a subjective conception of the individual’s self which depends on

the other’s judgment. Thus, if deviance is a difficulty to conform to the rules and the moral norms

of the others, the reaction of the others then is to label that individual as deviant or lawbreaker.

The individual who bears the label of deviant or outsider unconsciously and spontaneously takes

the societal given attitudes of the deviant or outsider. Society, on the other hand, as this group

which set up the rules and the moral norms treats the person as deviant on the basis that he is that

who breached society’s law. The breach of the law, however, depends on a number of social

factors such as the social class, gender, race, age, etc. We can see then on this interaction a social

construction of the individual’s self-image which is external to the individual and which influence

his conduct. The expectations of labelling and stereotyping usually bring negative effects to the

individual who bears the label to the effect that the labelled individual usually rejected from

society on the basis that he anticipates and perceives negative societal reactions to him.

VII. OUTSIDERS

This chapter is concerned with how the individual through social interaction comes to be

labelled by others in his community as an outsider and how this outsider individual gradually and

almost unconsciously comes to take the role and attitudes of deviant. What is important to bear

one in mind when analyse deviance from the standpoint of symbolic interactionism and labelling

theory is that deviance does not consist a stable quality that lies on the individual’s behaviour,

but, rather, that it is an abstract concept which arises out of interaction between the individual

who commits the “deviant” act and those who respond to it (usually his community) and that it is

a certain act which through social interaction comes to be considered as deviant. Thus deviance is

74
simply the consequence of a certain act as it is labelled by some people, that is, it is the response

of others to a certain act that characterises the individual who committed it as deviant. Deviance,

then, is neither something tangible by nature, nor something justifiable by itself as malfunction,

but, rather, it is a judgment which comes about through interaction. That presupposes, of course,

that the negatively-labelling “deviant” and the reprehensible behaviour of “deviance” are qualities

that change over time, under various situations, and that in the last analysis they are both qualities

that solely depend on social actor’s interaction judgment. In short, it is the outcome-consequence

of interaction between law-breakers and law-enforcers. For example, a few decades ago adultery

was considered as something reprehensible by the law or interracial marriages were forbidden in

some countries, facts that seem to our cultures today at least illogical. Thus, the content of law

and the limits that law imposes over the individuals must be considered as something that is

defined by the prevalent qualities of each era. In fact, it is a kind of consensus. Law institution as

a whole is something that is based on the prevalent cultural qualities of each era and therefore it is

something that is in a constant state of change-interaction. We shall not go into further analysis of

this postulation here, it is enough to have mentioned.

The second methodological precaution that is important one to keep in mind when

analysing deviance on this basis is that the law-breaker and the law-enforcer do not represent two

different objective qualities because both are regarded as outsiders one for another. The rule-

breaker role and rule-enforcer role are simply reflections of different statuses which arise out of

interaction between them.

● Social role x: Label: rule-breaker→ Attitude: break rules→ Status: (Deviant)

● Social role y: Label: rule-enforcer→ Attitude: enforce rules→ Status: (Policemen)

Thus the individual who is labelled as an outsider may equally well feel his judges are outsiders.

What is important, then, to do in deviance analysis is neither to try to examine whether rule-

breaking is something inherently deviant or not, nor whether deviance is an infraction of some

socially agreed-upon rule, but, rather, to try to find out the judgment process by which some

75
individuals come to be labelled as deviants of law while others as guarantors and enforcers of

law.

So far, then, we have seen that the definition of deviance is a matter of judgement on the

basis of society’s criteria which have the special property of altering their judgments over time

and under different situations. Howard S. Becker, one of the most influential members of the

Chicago School tradition, wrote the book Outsiders (1963). For Becker, it is wrong to analyse

deviance simply statistically or to attempt to identify pathological or medical analogies between

“healthy” people and deviants (Becker, 1963 pp 7). He was not also willing to accept theories

which treated deviance as a simple symptom of social functioning. For Becker, deviance is a

deeply societally constructed concept, for the examination of which one must take into account

political and social factors. However, his approach is not based on the logical consequence that

deviance is a response to social factors and criminogenic conditions which prompt such kinds of

action, but, rather, that “social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction

constitutes deviance and by applying those rules to particular people and labelling them as

outsiders” (Becker, 1963 pp9). Becker, then, was not much concerned with the social

characteristics which may lead an individual to take the one or the other label, but, with, the

transaction which takes place between a social group and this individual who is labelled by that

group as outsider. This transaction is what defines in the last analysis an action as deviant

whether it is or not. The importance lies on how others react to it.

We have seen hitherto that negative labelling arises out of interaction between the

individuals within a community. If we take now as the object of our attention the behaviour

which comes to be labelled as deviant, it is important to bear in mind that labelling-process is not

a linear one because different individuals hold different statuses and positions in social class

scale. This means that rules tend to be applied more to individuals who possess lower positions in

class scale rather than to those who possess upper positions. Thus, lower-class boys from slum

areas are more likely to be picked up by the police compared to those of middle or upper classes.

76
This variation depends on the degree to which an act is considered as deviant (nature of act), who

committed the act, and who is harmed by it (Becker, 1963 pp 12). For example, it is well known

that a Negro is considered generally more dangerous or more likely to commit an infraction of the

law compared to a white man. Researches by Harold Garfinkel (1949) revealed that a Negro who

attacked a white women is much more likely to be punished compared to a white man who has

committed the same offence. Similarly, a Negro who murdered another Negro is much less likely

to be punished compared to a white man who has committed murder (Becker, 1963 pp 13). It is

striking, also, to mention Edwin Sutherland’s (1940) research on white-collar criminality.

Sutherland (1940) found that while crimes committed by corporations are always prosecuted as

civil cases, the same crimes when are committed by individuals usually treated as criminal

offences (Becker, 1963 pp 13). All the above, are definitely signs of negative-labelling, which

have constructed through social interaction a given reality, which in turn has been reduced into

social rules and norms, which in turn have been reduced into forms of judgement about whether

an act is deviant or not and which in the last analysis have been reduced into a set of behaviours

and expectations the infraction of which comes to be considered as deviance.

The last point of our analysis, here, has to do with whose rules and upon whom their rules

are imposed? Empirical evidence (Becker, 1963) revealed that there is much disagreement

between people of the same community about the acceptance and submission to rules in terms of

what in the last analysis defines a behaviour as proper and what defines another one as deviant.

For example, Negroes believe that they are subject to rules which are made for them by whites.

Similarly, it is true that men make the rules for women or elders make the rules for young

(Becker, 1963 pp 17). Social rules, then, are socially created by specific individuals or specific

social groups and they are enforced over individuals in the form of fixed laws, the infraction of

which are associated with deviant behaviour and bring punishment. Thus, the socially constructed

negative-labels “outsiders” and “deviants” which are refer to those individuals who are judged by

others to be deviant fall within the wider socio-political conflict. The whole issue of what laws

77
are enforced, what behaviours are accepted as deviant, and which people are labelled negatively

are all objects of conflict and disagreement directly related with political and economic interests.

78
 CHAPTER VI

DATA ANALYSIS

“But what, after all, is a law? […] When I say that the object of laws is always general, I mean that law
considers subjects en masse and actions in the abstract, and never a particular person or action. […] On
this view, we at once see that it can no longer be asked whose business it is to make laws, since they are
acts of the general will; nor whether the prince is above the law, since he is a member of the State; nor
whether the law can be unjust, since no one is unjust to himself; nor how we can be both free and
subject to the laws, since they are but registers of our wills”
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, 1762: II, 6.
“What is the use of your laws if no one obeys them, what is the use of your orders if everybody refuses to
accept any orders?” Karl Marx, The German Ideology, 1845: 256

I. INTRODUCTION

Before we go into the data analysis, it is first necessary to sum up some theoretical key-

points which will articulate our thesis. Capitalism is that economic system or social model in

which economy possesses the dominant role.

In capitalism the means of production are
privately owned and controlled. Therefore,
social relations between individuals are
merely or mostly based on capital which is
the dominant mode of production. In the last
analysis, social relations are always
dependent on capital and determined by it. In
I. THEORY: How the State and its powers in the
modern capitalist and bourgeois societies form the
justice system in such a way as to exclude a certain
class (proletariat) or a certain number of people
(lumpen proletariat) from society. How the law is
the mechanism by which one social class, usually
referred to as the ruling class (bourgeoisie), keeps
all the other classes in a disadvantaged position.
How in the last analysis the role of justice system,
law, punishment, prison, police, are all institutions
and concepts (repressive and ideological state
apparatuses) which seem to have nothing in
common with the state and political power, which
seem to be independent, but which actually aren’t.

capitalist society, man is defined by his relationship to the means of production. The main effect,

then, of the capitalist economic system is that of dividing a society into classes. In class society

man is defined by his position in the class scale. Thus, capitalist society is divided into two

certain social classes; the bourgeoisie (the owners of the means of production) and the proletariat

(the non-owners or the labour-power).

79
 Given that in capitalist society the economy (structure) dominates the social body, the

structure and the function of politico-legal and ideological aspects (superstructure) are determined

in the last analysis by it (economic determinism). Thus, in capitalism the law is the law of the

bourgeois class, because the civil law is the law of private property. Right in capitalism is the

right of the powerful political elite and its allies, because in class society the upper-class makes

and controls the law through the political power and exercise it in such a way in the state

apparatus -which is at its disposal- as to enforce its interests. Ideology, also, in capitalism is the

ideology of the dominant class, i.e. bourgeois ideology, because the bourgeois class has at its

disposal the means for production, reproduction, and imposition of it over the masses. To sum up,

the state in capitalism is a class state because it is the condensation of class struggle and class

power. The capitalist state is the bourgeois state because it is governed and controlled by the

bourgeois class and as such its structure and function are fundamentally oriented against the

proletariat.

Let us now bring the above theory to the aid of our project. What conclusion we might

draw hitherto, on the basis of our theory, is that the capitalist state enforces rules of law and

morality in an a priori unequal socio-

economic basis, to the effect that the lower
socio-economic classes inevitably led to
crime as a means of survival and rebellion.
In capitalism, the legal system as a whole is
designed and intended by the state in such a
way as to guard the position of the upper-
class by any legal means necessary. State and
non-state institutions are aimed at forming
II. HYPOTHESIS: Hypothesis is derived from the
above theory and its object is to generate the
following questions: Why in capitalist societies are
under-class people more likely to be the subjects of
imprisonment in contrast to upper-class people?
Why in class society are underclass people more
likely to behave in a deviant manner? Whether this
is merely the outcome of the given justice system
where some acts are defined as deviant whereas
others are not? Whether in the capitalist system the
justice system is formatted and organised in such a
way as to maintain and reproduce capitalist
relations of production with the ultimate aim of
maintaining the ruling class’s best interests? Why in
the last analysis the phenomenon of criminality has
been increased in such unprecedented extent in
capitalist societies?

labour-class people for placement in the capitalist production system by giving them behaviour

models that help them conform to the wage-labour expectations. State and non-state institutions

80
are aimed at controlling people’s ideology in order to transform it into a docile body, controlling

people’s time in order to transform it into labour-time, and individual’s body in order to

transform it into productive force. Both are aimed at subjugating labour-class people, dictating

their behaviour, governing their action, and correcting their deformities.

It is important to show the relationship between the socio-economic dominance of the

ruling-class and the process by which deviance is defined and controlled in capitalist society.

Practically this means, that the poor do not commit more crimes than the rich, but they are

certainly arrested and punished more often. The essential factors on the basis of which crimes are

committed in capitalism are the unequal distribution of material wealth, individualism,

demoralization, and alienation of human beings from their human-nature, because of the

materialization of the modern industrial life in the context of which all the aspects of social life

are defined and determined by the market economy.

The main objective of justice, then, is the promotion of social order. That social order in

turn becomes socio-economic advantageous and politically useful for the bourgeoisie, because in

its context the bourgeois class is able to realize its interests. What happens, however, when that

law is broken? What is the actual use of the social contract when it is broken? What leads a

certain class to break the law? In the last analysis, what and how social conditions lead lower-

class people disproportionally to crime? In

analysing the issue of criminality in capitalism,
it is indispensable to examine economic factors
such as: distribution of wealth, income, as well
as the direct and indirect effects of the capitalist
economy over social conditions such as:
housing, employment, education, healthcare,
welfare. We would say that, in a sense, our
III. DATA COLLECTION: Crime and prison
official data from USA, UK, and GREECE are
compared and contrasted in order to prove our
hypotheses. The official data are gathered by
international institutions, government
departments, independent institutions, and other
researchers. The collection of the data is based
on the hypothesis that the more advanced
capitalist is one country, the more the social and
economic exclusion and therefore a part of
society the so-called lower-class is more likely to
be marginalised, to turned to crime as a means
for survival and rebellion and to led finally to
imprisonment through a number of state
apparatuses.

81
theses are concentrated within these remarks. Let us now try to draw links and correlations

between our theses and official statistical data.

II. SECONDARY ANALYSIS AND OFFICIAL STATISTICS

This chapter deals with a variety of data sets and official statistics being based on large

and high-quality investigations conducted by government departments, international institutions,

and organizations. That is, our project is an attempt to draw links between our theory and official

statistics, i.e. secondary analysis. Secondary analysis is based on official statistics which are

largely characterised as reliable and valid. The data have already been collected and analysed by

social researchers to the effect that considerable time and expense be saved. The data are based

on large-scale researches and represent entire populations so that a complete picture regarding our

subject-matter can be obtained. That in effect gives us the prospect of analysing the data both

cross-sectionally and longitudinally. In practice, that allows us to analyse crime and prison rates

with regard to social variables such as social class, wealth, income, employment, housing,

education and ethnicity. Moreover, on the basis of comparative design we can analyse the data

over time and across countries insofar that to draw inferences about the economic system and

wider social changes which take place in the context of it (Bryman, 2004 pp 212).

The essential element of comparative design is that it allows us through the cross-national

research format to examine in depth the social phenomena and draw links between different

levels of capitalist systems and the phenomenon of criminality. Therefore, our object is through

comparative design -which entails comparisons and associations between contrasting findings- to

examine our hypothesis in the context of three different capitalist systems. Moreover,

comparative design gives us the prospect to seek explanations for similarities and differences and

to gain a greater awareness and a deeper understanding of capitalist reality in different national

contexts. To sum up, this project aims to draw correlations between two variables, the first one is

82
the crime and the other one is a number of social variables which are dependent on and

determined by the economic system, in order to demonstrate that the first variable (crime) is

defined by a number of social variables which are determined by economic factors (housing,

employment, education, healthcare, welfare).

III. DATA ANALYSIS

As a first step it is important to demonstrate, in mathematical terms, the economic basis

on which are structured modern capitalist societies such as U.S.A, U.K and Greece, which

comprise the main field of our analysis. As we have hitherto seen, capitalism is that economic

system in which the means of production are privately owned. Given that in capitalism the means

of production are privately owned and controlled, and given that man is socially defined by his

relationship to the means of production, we can infer that the social wealth is a priori unequally

distributed in society. In short, that is what produces a class society. In a class society, the social

wealth is unequally distributed to such a degree that the working class’s lack of ownership

inevitably leads to socio-economic marginalisation and exclusion. Remember here that in class

society man is defined by his position in the class scale. In the following figure we can see the

process of social exclusion:

I. Capitalism II. The means of III. Unequal IV. Class society V. Socio-economic
production are distribution inequality
privately owned of wealth Figure 6.1: Diagram of social exclusion process

Let us now see through the data analysis if this postulation is correct, and if yes,

to what degree is that strong enough and statistically significant as to allow us to go

further.

OBJECTIVES:
I. The first methodological objective is to show the nature of capitalism through the unequal
distribution of global wealth, i.e. to demonstrate the socio-economic inequality at the global level.
II. The second methodological objective is to show the extent of capitalism in U.S.A, U.K and Greece
through the unequal distribution of wealth, i.e. to demonstrate the socio-economic inequality at the

83
 national level, in order to support our hypothesis that U.S.A is more advanced capitalist compared to
U.K and that U.K is more advanced capitalist compared to Greece.
III. The third methodological objective is to show the class structure of capitalist society, that is, how
and on what basis capitalist structured societies have the property of dividing a society into classes or
to reduce a social formation into a class formation.
IV. The fourth methodological objective is to show the social consequences of a class capitalist
society in terms of housing, employment, education, healthcare, welfare.
V. The fifth methodological objective is to show that the more advanced capitalist is one country, the
more the criminality. This part is concerned with crime rates in U.S.A, U.K and Greece.
VI. The sixth methodological objective is to show that the more advanced capitalist is one country,
the more the prison population as a response to high crime rates. This part deals with prison rates in
U.S.A, U.K and Greece. Moreover, the aim is to show that lower class individuals are more likely to
serve a prison sentence.
I. The first methodological objective is to define the nature of capitalism through the
unequal distribution of global wealth. Global inequality refers to socio-economic differences
between all individual in the world:

These economic trends and figures are

part of the information revealed by: “The World
Distribution of Household Wealth” conducted by
the World Institute for Development Economics
Research of the United Nations University (UNU-
WIDER) 2006. The co-authors James Davies of the
University of Western Ontario, Anthony
Shorrocks, and Susanna Sandstrom of UNU-
WIDER, and Edward Wolff of New York
University said that: ‘We use the term in its long-
established sense of net worth: the value of
physical and financial assets less debts. In this
respect, wealth represents the ownership of
capital. Although capital is only one part of
personal resources, it is widely believed to have a
disproportionate impact on household wellbeing
and economic success and more broadly on Figure 6.2 World distribution of wealth in the year 2000 by
economic development and growth’ (UNU-Press region. Source: United Nations University 2006
Release, 2006 pp 2).
Figure 6.2 and 6.3 show the world
distribution of wealth in the year 2000. Wealth is
heavily concentrated in North America, Europe,
and high income Asia-Pacific countries. People in
these countries collectively hold almost 90% of
total world wealth. According to the study, almost
all of the world’s richest individuals live in North
America, Europe, and rich Asia-Pacific countries.
Figure 6.4 shows per capita wealth of different
countries. Average wealth levels are extremely
different across continents and vary widely across
countries (UNU-Press Release, 2006 pp 2-3).

Figure 6.4 World wealth levels in year 2000

Source: United Nations University 2006

84
 In figures 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 collectively, we can see the unequal distribution of wealth at the global
level. What can be inferred is that the more advanced capitalist and industrialised is one continent, the more
the accumulation and concentration of global wealth in its possession.

Figure 6.3 Regional wealth shares (%)

Source: United Nations University 2006
What can be inferred from these tables is that world wealth is heavily concentrated and
disproportionally accumulated in North America, Europe, and high income Asia-Pacific countries which
are primarily based on strong capitalist economies. According to the study, almost all of the world’s richest
individuals live in these countries and collectively hold almost 90% of total world wealth. It is important to
underline the fact that as regards the wealth levels across countries the study found, inter alia, that the
average wealth in the USA amounted to $144,000 per person in year 2000, and $181,000 in Japan. Lower
down among countries with wealth data are India, with per capita assets of $1,100, and Indonesia with
$1,400 per capita (UNU-Press Release, 2006 pp 3).

Figure 6.5 shows the population and

wealth shares by region. The authors of the study
point out that: “although North America has only
6% of the world adult population, it accounts for
34% of household wealth. Europe and high
income Asia-Pacific countries also own
disproportionate amounts of wealth. In contrast,
the overall share of wealth owned by people in
Africa, China, India, and other lower income
countries in Asia is considerably less than their
population share, sometimes by a factor of more
than ten” The study found, inter alia, that “for all
developing regions of the world, the share of
population exceeds the share of global wealth,
which in turn exceeds the share of members of
the wealthiest groups” (UNU-Press release, 2006 Figure 6.5 Population and wealth shares by region
pp 3). Source: United Nations University 2006

Figure 6.6 shows the percentage

membership of wealthiest 10%. A small number
of countries account for most of the wealthiest
10% in the world. One quarter are Americans and
another 20% are Japanese. North America,
Europe, and high income Asia-Pacific countries
collectively account for most of the 76% in the
world. The study as a whole shows that a small
number of countries possess the greatest part of
world’s wealth.

Figure 6.7 shows the percentage

membership of wealthiest 1%. The authors point
out that “these two countries feature even more
strongly among the richest 1% of individuals in
the world, with 37% residing in the USA and
27% in Japan” (UNU-Press Release, 2006 pp 4). Figure 6.6 Percentage membership of wealthiest (10%)
Source: United Nations University 2006
It is also important to provide some key
points of the study. The authors of the study found,
inter alia, that “the richest 2% of adults in the
world own more than half of global household
wealth according to a path-breaking study released

85

Figure 6.7 Percentage membership of wealthiest (1%)

Source: United Nations University 2006
by the Helsinki-based World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations
University (UNU-WIDER). The most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken also reports
that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of
adults accounted for 85% of the world total. In contrast, the bottom half of the world adult population
owned barely 1% of global wealth. The research finds that assets of $2,200 per adult placed a household in
the top half of the world wealth distribution in the year 2000. To be among the richest 10% of adults in the
world required $61,000 in assets, and more than $500,000 was needed to belong to the richest 1%, a group
which -with 37 million members worldwide- is far from an exclusive club” (UNU-Press Release, 2006 pp
2-5).

The study found that the concentration of

wealth within countries varies significantly but is
generally high. The share of the top 10% ranges from
around 40% in China to 70% in the United States, and
higher still in other countries. The Gini value,
which measures inequality on a scale from zero to one,
gives numbers in the range from 35% to 45% for
income inequality in most countries. In contrast, Gini
values for wealth inequality are usually between 65%
and 75%, and sometimes exceed 80%. The study
estimates that the global wealth Gini for adults is
89%. The same degree of inequality would be
obtained if one person in a group of ten takes 99% of
the total pie and the other nine shares the remaining 1%
(UNU-Press Release, 2006 pp 4).
Figure 6.8 is a visualization of the global
distribution of income, 2005 and shows on a three Figure 6.8 The ‘global’ Gini coefficient for
decile/quintile incomes. Source: Postscript to the article
dimensional graph the global distribution of ‘World inequality and globalization’ (Oxford Review of
wealth. The author Bob Sutcliffe points out that the Economic Policy, Spring 2004). Bob Sutcliffe, April 2007
calculation of this global Gini coefficient is based on
the 126 countries with decile/quintile distribution data
in WDI (World Bank, World Development Indicators 2007) (Sutcliffe, 2007 pp 3).
To sum up, the study conducted by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at
United Nations University reported that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the
year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. On the other hand, the
bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth. It can be inferred that the gap
between the world’s rich and poor has never been wider. However, the governments of these countries
continue to follow socio-economic policies which inevitably lead to greater concentration of wealth (UNU-
Press Release, 2006 pp 2-5).

II. The second methodological objective is to show the extent of capitalism in U.S.A,
U.K and Greece through the unequal distribution of wealth, in order to support our hypothesis
that U.S.A is more advanced capitalist compared to U.K and that U.K is more advanced capitalist
compared to Greece. By proving this hypothesis we will then be able to support our thesis -later
in this chapter- that the more advanced capitalism, the more the socio-economic exclusion and the
criminality as a normal response to it. Moreover, this process will allow us to understand the level
of economic inequality and in consequence of social exclusion in each country at the national
level:

So far we have seen that the more advanced capitalist is one country, the more wealth is produced.
However, that does not presuppose that all the memberships of an advanced capitalist country possess a
proportional part of this wealth, because the national wealth respectively is unequally distributed. The
unequal distribution of wealth and income among people within the same country is usually referred to as

86
national inequality. International inequality, on the other hand, refers to the economic disparity between
countries. In the first instance, however, it is important to demonstrate the economic inequality at the
international level in order to support our hypothesis that U.S.A is a more advanced capitalist society
compared to U.K and that U.K respectively is a more advanced capitalist society compared to Greece.

Figure 6.9 shows the inequality in income or expenditure. Data show the ratio of the income or
expenditure share of the richest group to that of the poorest. The Gini coefficient is a measure of inequality
of income distribution or inequality of wealth distribution. Gini coefficient is defined as a ratio with values
between 0 and 1. Thus, a low Gini coefficient indicates more equal income or wealth distribution, while a
high Gini coefficient indicates more unequal distribution. That is, 0 corresponds to perfect equality, i.e.
everyone has the same income and 1 corresponds to perfect inequality, i.e. one person has all the income,
while everyone else has zero income. Above 0.4 is considered to be very high. The Gini Index in the
following table shows the Gini coefficient expressed as a percentage%.

Fi
gure 6.9 Inequality in income or expenditure
Source: Human Development Report 2006, (UNDP)

The Human Development Report found that the United States has 40.8% Gini Index, the United
Kingdom has 36% Gini Index, and Greece has 34.3% Gini Index. That is, U.S.A’s wealth and income are
more unequally distributed within country compared to U.K’s wealth and income and U.K’s wealth and
income are more unequally distributed compared to Greece’s wealth and income. It should be emphasized
that while most developed European nations have Gini coefficients between 0.24 and 0.36, the United
States Gini coefficient is above 0.4, indicating that the United States has greater socio-economic inequality.
The United States Census Bureau reported that Gini coefficient for the year 2005 is estimated to be 0.47.
The U.S Census Bureau reported also that Gini coefficient has risen considerably since the first year
reported 1976, at that time it was 0.39 (U.S. Census Bureau on-line version).
Figure 6.10 shows a table derived from a study conducted by the United Nations University with
the title “Inequality, Growth and Poverty in the Era of Liberalization and Globalisation”. The co-authors
Giovanni Andrea Cornia and Julius Court, found that over the last three decades as country after country
has experienced an upsurge in income inequality (UNU, 2001 pp 7).

Figure 6.10 Trends in inequality across nations and over time

87
 It is of particular interest to underline the case of U.K over the last two decades (figure 6.11). The
study reported that inequality increased of more than 10 Gini points over the last two decades. That was the
greater inequality increase even recorded in the OECD group (UNU, 2001 pp 9).

Figure 6.11 Inequality trends over the last

two decades in the United Kingdom Source:
United Nations University 2001 The
unequal distribution of wealth and income is considered the major factor in social exclusion. Almost all the
developed capitalist countries over the last three decades have followed social policies which gradually led
to the increasement of socio-economic exclusion. It is necessary here to demonstrate the ownership of
wealth by social classes at the national level. Let us begin by exposing some interesting data regarding the
Unites States of America:

88
 These economic trends and figures are part of the information revealed by Professor G. William
Domhoff, well-known for his book “Who Rules
America?” (1967) the fifth edition came out in “Who
Rules America now?” (2006), as well as information
revealed by Professor of economics Edward N. Wolff at
New York University, the author of many books and
articles on tax policy, income, and wealth.
Figure 6.12 shows the net worth and financial
distribution in the United States in 2001. Wealth is
highly concentrated in the Top 1%. As Professor Edward
N. Wolff found (2004), the top 1% of households (the
upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth,
and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and
small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just
20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving Figure 6.12: Net worth and financial wealth
only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and distribution in the U.S. in 2001. Source: Domhoff,
2007.
salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of
households had an even greater share: 39.7% (Domhoff,
2007).
Figure 6.13 is drawn from Edward N. Wolff and
shows the wealth distribution by type of asset. In terms of
types of financial wealth, the top one percent of
households have 44.1% of all privately held stock, 58.0% of
financial securities, and 57.3% of business equity. The
top 10% have 85% to 90% of stock, bonds, trust funds,
and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real
estate. Given that financial wealth is what counts as far as
the control of income-producing assets, we can say that
just 10% of the people own the United States of America
(Domhoff, 2007).
Figure 6.14 shows the median net worth by Figure 6.13: Wealth distribution by type of asset,
ethnicity and race. “Median” means that 50% of 2001: investment assets. Source: Domhoff, 2007
households have more and 50% of households have less
than the figure on the graph. The graph shows that Black
and Latino households have far less wealth than do non-
Hispanic Whites, whether we are talking about wealth in
general or just home equity (Domhoff, 2007).

Figure 6.14: Median net worth by ethnicity and

race, 2000. Source: Domhoff, 2007.

Figure 6.15 shows the share of total

ownership by the bottom 99% and top 1 in the
Figure 6.15: Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in United States, 1998.
the United States, 1998.
Source: Fair Economy Organisation

89
 Figure 6.16 shows the share of capital
income earned by top 1% and bottom 80%. It is
important to note that over the last two decades
the concentration of income has been increased
considerably. This is further support for the
inference that rich has been richer while poor
has been poorer over the last two decades in the
United States. Note that during that period
capitalism in the United States developed and
advanced toward a harder, stiffer, and profitable
economic system, rather than on the basis of a
socially-oriented socio-economic system. That
in effect has produced a greater socio-economic Figure 6.16 Share of capital income earned by top 1% and
differentiation between rich and poor in the U.S. bottom 80%, 1979-2003. Source: Shapiro & Friedman, 2006

Let us now see the case of the United

Kingdom: Figure 6.17 shows that wealth in the
United Kingdom is considerably unequally
distributed. The richest 1% of the population
own 34% of all the wealth in Britain, while the
poorer half own only one percent. It is striking
to note that over the last three decades country’s
wealth has been concentrated much more in the
hands of the middle and upper economic classes
to the effect that the rich getting richer and the
poor getting poorer.
Figure 6.18 shows the distribution of
wealth and income in Greece for the year 2000.
The richest 10% of the population own 25.3%
of all wealth in Greece, while the poorer 10%
own only 3%. It is important to note that the
Figure 6.17 Share of the wealth in the United Kingdom in 2006.
bottom 90% own 74.7% of all the wealth in Source: National Statistics/Inland Revenue
Greece.

Despite the fact that wealth in Greece is Distribution of Wealth and Income by Percentage Share
considerably unequally distributed, however, it is Greece:
much more equally distributed compared to
U.S.A’s and U.K’s wealth. The richest 10% in Lowest 10% 3.0
U.S.A own 78% of country’s wealth in 1998, the Lowest 20% 7.5
richest 10% in U.K own 53% of all the wealth in Second 20% 12.4
Britain in 2003, while in Greece the richest 10% Third 20% 16.9
of the population own 25.3% of all the wealth in Fourth 20% 22.8
2000. It is important also to analyse what Highest 20% 40.3
percentage of wealth possess the lowest economic Highest 10% 25.3
classes. The bottom 80% in U.S.A own 16% of
net worth in 2001, the bottom 50% in U.K own Figure 6.18 Distribution of Wealth and Income by Percentage
Source: 2000 World Development Indicators
only 1% in 2003, while the bottom 80% in Greece
own 59.7% in 2000. What can be inferred from these figures is that U.S.A, U.K, and Greece are both
advanced capitalist countries and that all of them are based on strong capitalist economies to the effect that
all of them have unequally distributed wealth. However, the percentage of wealth distribution is not the
same between countries. The upper classes in U.S.A, i.e. the top 10% own 78.7% of all the wealth in U.S.A
in 1998, are by far richer compared to the upper classes in Greece, i.e. the top 10% own 25.3% of all the
wealth in Greece in 2000. The upper classes in U.K. i.e. the top 10% own 53% of all the wealth in Britain
in 2003, are by far richer compared to the upper classes in Greece, i.e. the top 10% own 25.3% of all the
wealth in Greece in 2000. Thus, despite that all countries have unequal distributed wealth at the national

90
level, however, U.S.A’s wealth is much more unequally concentrated in the hands of few compared to U.K
and similarly U.K’s wealth is much more unequally concentrated in the hands of few compared to Greece.
Through these figures, then, we have supported our hypothesis that U.S.A is more advanced capitalist
compared to U.K and that U.K is more advanced capitalist compared to Greece. Note that tax evasion in
Greece is estimated to be for the middle and lower classes 40%, while in U.S.A and U.K tax evasion is
estimated to be for the middle and lower classes only 5%. If we take that into account the wealth
distribution in Greece might be much more equal.

III. The third methodological objective is to show the class structure of capitalist
society, that is, how and on what basis capitalist structured societies have the property of dividing
a society into classes or to reduce a social formation into a class formation.

Here we are concerned with the class

structure of capitalist society. The following
figures have to do with America’s class
distribution. Figure 6.19 is drawn from Gilbert
Dennis (1997) and shows that middle-class is
divided into two groups: an upper middle-class
(professionals) and a lower middle-class (semi-
professionals). The lower middle-class has no
economic autonomy, lower incomes and
educational attainments compared to upper
middle-class. The upper middle-class has
economic dependence on rich-class which
enjoys the economic autonomy and appropriates
the majority of income and wealth.
Figure 6.19 America’s class distribution
Source: Gilbert, Dennis: American Class Structure in an Age
of Growing Inequality (1997)

91
 Figure 6.20 and 6.21 is drawn from
Thompson and Hickey (2005). Their class
system is divided into five groups. Upper class
(1%-1.5%): it is a group of considerable socio-
economic power individuals. Their income
exceeds $150.000. Upper middle-class (15%): it
is a group of white collar professionals. Their
income exceeds $100.000. Lower middle-class
(33%): it is a group of middle-level workers,
usually with a Bachelor degree. Their income
exceeds $30.000. Working class (30%): it is a
group of blue-collar workers with no education-
qualifications, usually unemployed, and face
health problems. Their income is commonly Figure 6.22 Average wages
$16.000. Lower class (17%): it is a group which Source: Executive Excess 2006, the 13th Annual CEO
lives bellow the poverty line, usually without Compensation Survey from the Institute for Policy Studies and
occupation, without education, and faces health United for a Fair Economy.
problems. Their income is less than $10.000.
Figure 6.21 shows the division of
society into classes. Upper class (elite) members Figure 6.20 Thompson, W. & Hickey, J social class model
are those who hold wealth and socio-economic Source: Thompson, W. & Hickey, J: Society in focus (2005)
prestige. They possess governmental or
managerial positions and influence nation’s
institutions. Upper middle-class (bourgeoisie)
members enjoy comfortable incomes, hold
higher educational degrees, and possess
professional positions. Lower middle-class
(petty-bourgeoisie) members are semi-
professionals who struggle to keep their position
in class scale. They have the tendency often to
be deflected in lower classes. Working class
members (proletarians) are blue-collar workers
who are fully economic dependent, they
exchange their labour, they have neither
property nor economic autonomy, usually they
have no health insurance and live in bad
conditions, and they have no upper education or Figure 6.21 Social classes in the United States
they are illiterates. For some, they are the Source: Thompson, W. & Hickey, J: (2005)
majority of members of capitalist society, because the majority of society’s members tend to posses social
characteristics like those of working class members. Lower class members (lumpen-proletariat) are
individuals who live in fully exclusion, marginalisation, and alienation. They represent an important group
of society which appears mainly in urban centres, they are unemployed, they live bellow the line of
poverty, and have the worst health and housing. Over the last decades their appearance tends to be greater.
The more advanced capitalist is an urban centre, the more the proletarians and lumpen proletarians. It is
important to bear in mind that over the last decades the social classes in advanced capitalist countries have
been somewhat confused, because members of different classes share similar characteristics. However, the
general distinction between bourgeois (owners) and proletarians (non-owners) remain the same.
Figure 6.23 is drawn from Domhoff (2007) and shows the average salaries by occupation. It is
striking to note that CEOs' pay increased almost 300% from 1990 to 2005, while production worker’s pay
increased only 4.3%.

92
 IV. The fourth methodological objective is to show the social consequences of a class
capitalist society in terms of housing, employment, education, healthcare, and welfare.

In capitalism the social conditions under which one lives are directly related to income and have
the property to function with the form of domino effect. Let us see the income effects over social aspects in
terms of the United Kingdom.

Figure 6.23 shows the poor

living conditions by income. The
Office for National Statistics (Social
Trends 2007) reported that the
likelihood of living in poor housing
conditions is strongly related to
household income. Households in the
lowest fifth of the income distribution
are the most likely to live in non-
decent homes and experience poor
quality environments. In 2004, 37 per
cent of households in England in the
lowest fifth of the income distribution
lived in non-decent homes and 20 per
cent experienced poor quality
environments. Households in the
highest fifth of the income distribution
were the least likely to live in non-
decent homes (20 per cent) or
experience a poor quality environment Figure 6.23 Poor living conditions by income (11
per cent). Source: Social Trends 2007

Figure 6.24 shows the permanent

exclusion rates by ethnic group in the
United Kingdom. In 2004/05 the
permanent exclusion rate for boys was
nearly four times higher than that for girls
in England. Exclusion rates vary by ethnic
group of pupils. In 2004/05, rates ranged
from 2 in every 10,000 Chinese pupils
being permanently excluded from schools
in England, to 41 in every 10,000 pupils
of mixed White and Black Caribbean
origin Black African pupils were far less
likely to be permanently excluded (14 in
every 10,000), than Black. It is well
known that there is an important
relationship between education and the
distribution of income in a population. On
the one hand, income inequality may
prevent access to education when
education is too costly for poor families.
In this respect, there may be a self-
perpetuating poverty trap that can only be

Figure 6.24 Permanent exclusion rates by ethnic group

Source: Social Trends 2007
93
 avoided by easing access to education. On the other hand, improved access to education raises the earning
opportunity of the lowest classes (UNU/WIDER, 2001).

Figure 6.25 shows the drop out rates in

the United States from 1972 to 2004. We can see
that ethnic and racial minorities hold considerable
higher dropout rates compared to White non-
Hispanic Americans.

Figure 6.25 Status dropout rates of 16- through 24-

year-olds, by race/ethnicity: October 1972 through
October 2004 Figure 6.26 Prevalence of mental disease by household income
Source: U.S Census Bureau Source: Social Trends 2007

Figure 6.26 shows the prevalence of mental disease by household income. There appears to be a
close association between mental disorder in children and economic disadvantage in their household.
Among both boys and girls the prevalence of mental disorder tends to rise as household income falls. In
2004 in Great Britain the highest prevalence of mental disorder was found among children who lived in a
household with a gross weekly income of under £100, among whom 18 per cent of boys and 13 per cent of
girls had some type of mental disorder. In contrast, children living in households with a gross weekly
income of £600 or more were the least likely to experience any type of mental disorder, at between 6 and 7
per cent of boys and 4 per cent of girls.

V. The fifth methodological United States

objective is to show that the more
advanced capitalist is one country, the
more the criminality. This part is
concerned with crime rates in U.S.A,
U.K and Greece.
We have shown -on the basis of
economic inequality- that the United
States are more advanced capitalist
compared to the United Kingdom and that
the United Kingdom is more advanced
capitalist compared to Greece. Let us now
show through crime rates whether this
socio-economic inequality gives rise to
criminogenic conditions and influences
crime rates. Figure 6.27 shows crime rates
in the United States according to the
United Nations Crime Survey. Data reveal
that 7.5 per 1.000 people commit assaults
Assaults 2,238,480 (per capita) 7.56923 per 1,000 people
Car thefts 1,147,300 (per capita) 3.8795 per 1,000 people
Drug offences 560.1 per 100,000 people
Burglaries 2,099,700 (per capita) 7.09996 per 1,000
people
Frauds 371,800 (per capita) 1.25721 per 1,000 people
Murders 12,658   (per capita) 0.042802 per 1,000 people
Rapes 89,110   (per capita) 0.301318 per 1,000 people
Robberies 409,670 (per capita) 1.38527 per 1,000 people
Total crimes 23,677,800
Total crimes (per capita) 80.0645 per 1,000 people
Figure 94
6. 27 United States Crime Stats
Source: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations
of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime
Prevention)
in the United States. About 3.9 per 1.000 people commit car thefts. About 560 per 100.000 people commit
drug offences. About 7.1 per 1.000 people commit burglaries. About 1.2 per 1.000 commits frauds. 0.042
per 1.000 people in the United States commit murders. About 0.3 per 1.000 commit rapes. About 1.4 per
1.000 commits robberies. In the United States the total crimes rate it is considerable high. Total crimes are
23.677.800 in the United States, that is, 80 per 1.000 people commit a criminal offence.

Figure 6.28 shows crime rates in

the United Kingdom according to the United Kingdom
United Nations Crime Survey. About 7.5
per 1.000 people commit assaults. About Assaults 450,865 (per capita) 7.45959 per 1,000 people
5.6 per 1.000 commit car thefts. About
214 per 100.000 in the United Kingdom Car thefts 338,796 (per capita) 5.6054 per 1,000 people
commit drug offences. About 13.8 per
1.000 people commit burglaries. About Drug offences 214.3 per 100,000 people
5.3 per 1000 people commit frauds in the
United Kingdom. About 0.14 per 1.000 Burglaries 836,027   (per capita) 13.8321 per 1,000 people
people commit rapes. About 1.58 per
1.000 people commit robberies in the Frauds 319,324   (per capita) 5.28324 per 1,000 people
United Kingdom. Total crimes are
5.170.830 in the United Kingdom, that is, Murders 850   (per capita) 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
85.5 per 1.000 people commit a criminal
offence. The United Kingdom crime Rapes 8,593    (per capita) 0.142172 per 1,000 people
rates are among the highest throughout
the world and slightly higher compared to Robberies 95,154 (per capita) 1.57433 per 1,000 people
those of the United States. It must be
noted that murder rates in the United Total crimes 5,170,830   
States (0.042 per 1.000 people) are
considerable higher compared to (0.014 Total crimes (per capita) 85.5517 per 1,000 people
per 1.000 people of the United Kingdom.
On the other hand, burglaries in the Figure 6.28 United Kingdom Crime Stats
United Kingdom (13.8 Source: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of
per 1.000 people) are much more than Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations
Greece
Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
(7.1 per 1.000 people) of the United
States. We can say that there is a Assaults 3,322   (per capita) 0.311399 per 1,000 people
correspondence between the crime rates
and the economic indices of the two Car thefts 8,486   (per capita) 0.795463 per 1,000 people
countries.
Let us now see whether crime Drug offences 33.3 per 100,000 people
rates in Greece are considerable lower
compared to the crime rates of the United Burglaries 15,899 (per capita) 1.49035 per 1,000 people
States and the United Kingdom. Figure
6.29 shows the crime rates in Greece Frauds 391  (per capita) 0.0366517 per 1,000 people
according to the United Nations Crime
Survey. About 0.3 per 1.000 people in Murders 81 (per capita) 0.0075928 per 1,000 people
Greece commit assaults. About 0.8 per
1.000 people commit car thefts. About 33 Rapes 114    (per capita) 0.0106862 per 1,000 people
per 100.000 people in Greece commit
drug offences. About 1.4 per 1.000 Robberies 833 (per capita) 0.078084 per 1,000 people
commit burglaries. About 0.04 per 1.000
people in Greece commit frauds. Only Total crimes 102,783
0.007 per 1.000 people commit murders
and 0.01 per 1.000 people commit rapes. Total crimes (per capita) 9.6347 per 1,000 people
Figure 6.29 Greek Crime Stats
Source: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of
Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations
Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

95
About 0.08 per 1000 people commit robberies. Total crimes are 102.783 in Greece, that is, 9.7 per 1.000
people commit a criminal offence.

Figure 6.30 shows crime rates in the United Kingdom by type of offence. Similarly, figure 6.31
shows crime rates in the United States by type of offences. In both figures we can see that the majority of
criminal offences have to do with property offences (economic motivations) and violence (alienation).

It is obvious that Greek crime rates are by far lower compared to those of the United States and the
United Kingdom. This fact allows us to support our hypothesis about the relation between crime rates and
socio-economic variables. However, there are a number of qualitative factors which influence all those
indices and which have not been discussed here. Statistical analysis of social qualities is the more simplistic
form of examination of social phenomena and therefore it is reasonable to contain fallibilities and
limitations. However, in the context of this project it allows us to support our thesis and develop a general
understanding of social trends. It is necessary to develop further our thesis by correlating and contrasting
these findings with qualitative data.

Figure 6.30 Type of offence in U.K Figure 6.31 Type of offence in U.S.A
Source: Social Trends 2007 VI. The sixth Source: U.S. Census Bureau
methodological
objective is to show that the more advanced capitalist is one country, the more the prison
population as a response to growing crime rates. Moreover, the aim is to show that lower class
individuals are more likely to serve a prison sentence. This part deals with prison rates in U.S.A,
U.K and Greece.

The comparatively modern penal institution, the so-called prison, accommodates today more than
9 million people throughout the world. The majority of these people are held in the United States of
America (2.09m), China (1.55m) and Russia (0.76m). It is tremendous the fact that the institution of prison
-which begun at the end of the 18 th century and at the beginning of the 19 th century as a provisional measure
until the criminal comes to the justice- have been reduced today into a mass means of repression,
punishment, and correction. Despite the fact that prison population rates vary considerably between
different countries, however, the tendency throughout the world shows that prison population are growing.
Let us now examine the prison population of U.S.A, U.K and Greece in order to examine whether our
hypothesis that, the more advanced capitalists is one country, the more the prison population as a response
to growing crime rates, is true. The data are drawn from the International Centre for Prison Studies of
King’s College London.

96
 Figure 6.32 World Prison Population List
Source: International Centre for Prison Studies of King’s College London.

Figure 6.32 shows the prison population of U.S.A, U.K, and Greece. Prison population of the
United States is the highest throughout the world. It is 2.1millions for the year 2003. That is, the prison
population rate in the United States is 714 per 100.000. Prison population of the United Kingdom (England
and Wales) is 75.320 for the year 2005. That is, the prison population rate in the United Kingdom is 142
per 100.000. Despite the fact that it is considerably lower compared to that of the United States, it is the
highest rate in the European Union. Prison population of Greece is 8.760 for the year 2004. That is, the
prison population rate in Greece is 82 per 100.000. We can see that U.S.A’s prison population rate is by far
higher compared to that of U.K’s and Greece’s. That results mainly on the basis that the United States is a
country with traditionally high prison rates due to the fact that the institution of the prison is massively
applied by the American penal law. Correlative factors are considered the considerable racial diversity,
economic disparity, and lack of social consistency as a consequence of strong capitalist socio-economic
policies. The United Kingdom and Greece hold considerably lower prison population rates compared to the
United States. Correlative factors for this fact are considered the modern European penal tradition which
used to be somewhat adversary to the mass use of the institution of the prison and the considerably
-compared to the United States- greater social cohesion. Social and economic cohesion seems to be the
most important factor in terms of the prison population, since Greece as a more closed racially society
-compared to the United Kingdom- hold about the half prison population rate compared to that of the
United Kingdom. On the basis of this postulation, it is striking to note that prison population rate in Greece
has been increased considerably over the last decade (for the year 1995 was 56/100.000). This argument
can be supported by the fact that over the last decade Greece -as a developing country- attracted a great
number of economic immigrants. It is important to note that the 41.6% of total Greek prison population are
foreigners, while in the United Kingdom they are the 11% and in the United States they are 6.2%
(International Centre for Prison Studies of King’s College London, 2007) . This fact results mainly on the basis that the
majority of immigrants in Greece are illegal. However, it is more important to analyse the percentage of
ethnic and racial minorities in prison population in order to examine whether a socio-economically
excluded immigrant is more likely to turn to crime and led to prison. Official prison data lack of any kind
of categorization between inmates in terms of their income (social class). Thus, we must try to find out
through other variables whether economic and social status is related with imprisonment. This method will
allow us to examine whether social and economic capitalist factors play an important role in terms of
imprisonment.

97
 The Greek Ministry of Justice estimates that the 41.6% of Greek prison population belong to non-
Greek racial or ethnic minorities and foreigners. We have to take into account that in Greek prison
population there is an important group of Gypsies who have Greek ethnicity but they belong to different
racial. If we sum up all these data we will see that Greeks despite the fact that represent the majority of
country’s population, they represent the minority of prison population. The majority of immigrants of
prison population are sentenced for financial crimes. This fact adds points to our thesis that social
(emigration) and economic (poverty) factors play the most important role as regards the motivations of
criminal actions.
According to Home Office report (2002): on 30th June 2002, 16,170 people in Prison Service
establishments in England and Wales were from ethnic minority groups. This was an increase of 15 per
cent (or 2,120) from the 14,050 held in June 2001. Over the same period, the prison population as a whole
increased by 7 per cent. On 30th June 2002, 7,720, or 11 per cent, of the prison population were foreign
nationals. This represented an increase in the number of foreign nationals in prison, from 6,930, or 10 per
cent of the total population, in 2001. If we add up ethnic and racial minorities we will find that over 36% of
U.K’s (England and Wales) prison population are not natives. This percentage does not correspond to
U.K’s racial and ethnic minorities and foreigners who are not more than 9% of overall country’s
population. Home Office report (2002 found among others that: “The population of ‘Chinese and other’
prisoners has increased the most since 1992 (up 183 per cent), whereas White and South Asian prisoners
have increased the least (46 and 58 per cent respectively). The increase in the ethnic minority population is
linked to the increase in the population of foreign nationals; a considerable proportion (35 per cent) of
prisoners belonging to an ethnic minority group is foreign nationals. Ethnic minority groups made up 22
per cent of the male prison population and 29 per cent of the female prison population at the end of June
2002. This is a small increase compared to 2001 when ethnic minority groups made up 21 per cent of the
male population and 26 per cent of the female prison population. Among sentenced males, a higher
proportion of White prisoners were in prison for violent or sexual offences (34 per cent) or for burglary (19
per cent) than were Black prisoners (24 per cent and 9 per cent respectively). Black male prisoners were
more likely than White males to be held for robbery (21 per cent among Black prisoners, 12 per cent
among White prisoners) and for drugs offences (33 per cent among Black prisoners, 13 per cent among
White prisoners). Among sentenced adults, 51 per cent of the White population were serving sentences of 4
years or more. The equivalent figures among sentenced adults from other ethnic groups were 65 per cent of
the Black population, 58 per cent of the South
Asian population and 60 per cent from ‘Chinese
and other’ ethnic groups” (Home Office, 2002). It
is true that racial and ethnic minorities -as those
groups which undoubtedly belong to lower
classes since lack of safe economic and social
status- are more likely to commit financial
crimes -on the basis of their lack of money-
compared to whites who are more prone to
commit violent crimes. We must bear in mind
that whether prisoners are natives or not, they
are all belong to lower classes, since almost all
of them lack of qualifications and usually face
serious employment problems for a long period
Figure 6.33 Number of sentenced prisoners by age, gender, and
before to commit their crime. race. Source: U.S. Department of Justice
In the United States the rates for ethnic
and racial minorities are worse. Figure 6.33 shows that at yearend 2005 black inmates represented an
estimated 40% of all inmates with a sentence of more than 1 year, while white inmates accounted for 35%
and Hispanic inmates, 20%. When incarceration rates are estimated separately by age group, black males in
their twenties and thirties are found to have high rates relative to other groups. Expressed in terms of
percentages, 8.1% of black males age 25 to 29 were in prison on December 31, 2005, compared to 2.6% of
Hispanic males and about 1.1% of white males in the same age group (U.S Department of Justice, 2005). It
is important also to mention some key points as regards profile of inmates: Whites represent 69% of the
general population, 35% of the adult prison population and a white male has a 4.4% chance of going to
prison in his lifetime. Hispanics represent 12.5% of the population, 16% of the adult prison population and
Hispanic males have a 16% chance of going to prison. Blacks represent 12.3% of the general population,

98
46% of federal and state adult prison inmates and a black male has a 28% chance of going to prison in his
lifetime. Among people on probation, 64% are white, 34% are black and 21% are Hispanic. 93% of prison
inmates are male and 7% are female. Between 1986 and 1991 the number of black women incarcerated on
drug offences increased 828% (The Sentencing Project, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S Census Bureau,
2007).
To conclude it should be noted that over the last decade prison population has been increased
considerably both in U.S, U.K and Greek prisons. The prison population rate for the year 1992 in the
United States was 505 compared to 750 for the year 2006. The prison population rate for the year 1992 in
the United Kingdom was 105 compared to 142 for the year 2007. The prison population rate for the year
1992 in Greece was 61 compared to 91 for the year 2006. Prison population rates reveal that lower-class
individuals (ethnic and racial minorities) are more likely to serve a prison sentence. However, that does not
necessarily mean that lower class individuals commit more crimes compared to upper or middle class
individuals. Social and economic factors such as ethnicity, unemployment, social status, education, etc, are
considered to be the motivational factors of a criminal act. We must bear in mind that the lower-class
individuals are more likely to serve a prison sentence compared to the upper-class individuals even if both
infract the same law on the basis of social status (labelling theory).

99
 CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSION

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”

Karl Marx: Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

Scientific literature is swarmed by theoretical schools and traditions which attempt –

from different standpoints of view each one- to conceive, construe, and in the last analysis

explain crime phenomenon. However, only some of them manage to propose well-formed

theoretical and practical explanations of the phenomenon, while fewer are capable to put forward

integrated solutions. Today, there are a number of scientific disciplines –range from philosophy

to biology- which attempt through different approaches and on the basis of different

methodological readings to get a better understanding of crime. For example, philosophy tries to

establish causal relations between crime and ethics. Sociology, tries to find out positivistically the

statistical correlation between crime and social variables. Social biology/psychology, tries to

detect inherent or acquired criminogenic attributes in the social composition of the individual’s

self. Despite the different methodological ways by which all of them attempt to explain crime

phenomenon, however, it is more important to bear in mind that both base their readings -either

in the first or in the last analysis- on society.

Let us now see what can be inferred on the basis of what we have seen so far at the

theoretical and empirical level of this project. It is true that social factors and conditions are what

determine the nature of society (social formation) which in turn defines the human nature of

individuals. Even if we try to reverse this postulation, in any case, we will find that society

remains the determinant factor of the nature of the individual. It is also true, then, that crime is

100
social in origin and in nature and thus it must be considered, studied, and treated as such. In the

analysis then of crime as a social phenomenon and as a consequence of social conflict, what is

firstly important to do is to examine it in relation to social formation. In capitalist formation that

presupposes to take into account the economic aspect (base) in the first analysis and the politico-

legal and ideological aspect (superstructure) in the last analysis. Only on this basis we will be

able to conceive the deeply-rooted causes which give rise to criminogenic conditions which in

turn, directly or not, give rise to crime. For us, then, since crime is social in origin as we have

seen so far, what must be studied and discussed is not crime as an abstracted and isolated

phenomenon, but, rather, criminality us a whole and as that social dynamics which arises out of

social conflict (class conflict). Criminality, therefore, must be considered as a consequence, or

even better, as the outcome of social conflict and class struggle. In any other case, the

examination of a purely societally issue -as it is crime- out of social context will lead us to wrong

inferences.

On this basis, then, social policies and state interventions which aimed solely at

tackling crime without taking into account socio-economic and political factors it is reasonable to

lead to unsuccessful outcomes. For example, the modern crime prevention policies which are

based on the rationale of zero-tolerance and situational crime prevention interventions have been

proved unable to provide a sound solution. Moreover, the consequences of them in terms of

criminality are usually worse than it was before their implementation (displacement).

Characteristic example and proof that crime has need of deeply-societal changes in the root of

problem, rather than just prevention efforts is that Britain is now being watched by a staggering

4.2 million CCTV cameras. This means that in U.K there is about 1 camera for every 14 people

and that U.K holds about a fifth of the cameras in the entire world. However, despite the

instalment of these cameras, crime rates have been terribly exploded over the last decade in U.K.

Moreover, it is important to underline that such policies inevitably bring a number of other

negative effects. For example, Britain, U.S.A and other developed capitalist countries today run

101
the risk to slip into authoritarianism (Orwellian society). Both deserve the label of panoptic

societies. We can draw links here with the Foucaudian viewpoint of panoptic and disciplinary

capitalist society. Remember that in Bentham’s view, panopticism must be intended solely at the

supervision of the individuals, rather than the reformation of social criminogenic factors which

give rise to crime.

Remember here that in Marxist theory crime is inherent in social structure and

inevitable in capitalist social formation, i.e. crime is social in origin and a normal response to

prevailing cultural capitalist conditions. Given, therefore, that man in capitalist society is defined

by his relationship to the means of production, i.e. in class society man is defined by his position

in the class scale and given that man is above all mind (a product of history), i.e. a product of a

given historical condition insofar that his consciousness is totally determined by the social

structure, we can say that: proletarians on the basis of their economic dependence on the

bourgeois class coupled with the lack of goods, alienation, demoralization, individualism,

materialism, and violence are what inevitably turn them to crime in order to feed their needs and

addictions. Remember once again that the more advanced capitalist is a society, the more the

criminality. Data analysis, on the basis of the unequal distribution of income and class

segregation at every level of social life, revealed that U.S.A, U.K and Greece are deeply capitalist

societies. However, research revealed that the United States and the United Kingdom on the basis

of strongly and highly advanced capitalist economies have considerably higher criminality

compared to Greece. Greece, as a less advanced capitalist country, represents higher rates of

social and economic cohesion to the effect that preserve considerably lower rates of criminality.

However, what strengths further more our thesis is that over the last decade, during which Greece

has undergone considerable socio-economic transitions toward a more advanced capitalist

society, criminality has been considerably increased in country. Main reasons for this effect are

considered the growth of socio-economic inequality, social exclusion of lower classes and

immigrants, accumulation of wealth in the hands of the ruling class, and the collapse of

102
traditional institutions which until recently provided a minimum level of social cohesion and

organisation. It is on this basis that we can find out the causes of criminality and the tremendous

explosion of crime rates over the last decades. It is in the context of modern capitalist-bourgeois

society that we can find out the causes of the generalization of supervision, suppression,

repression, normalization, and correction of the individual’s will. It is on this basis, lastly, that we

found the expansion of the usefulness and the inevitability of prison as proletarianization

machine.

It is important to bean in mind that the whole issue of criminality falls within the wider

sphere of political and economic power and in that context should be considered. The state, in

capitalism, as the ultimate social institution in the hands of the bourgeois class, has been proved

that through its apparatuses and political power deliberately and studiously lead a part of society

the so-called proletariat to the margin of economic and social life. It is on this basis, then, why

individuals from the proletariat class on the basis of economic deprivation and exploitation on the

one hand and the politico-legal exclusion on the other are led disproportionally to crime and

imprisonment. It is not only necessary today governments to follow and implement social

inclusion policies (reformations), but, moreover, it is indispensable a wider change of the

economic and political system toward a socio-economic system based on equality and legality.

This thesis has tried to set out the bases for further research. It is necessary, also, to study the

phenomenon in relation to further study of the state, state power, state apparatus, state

institutions, and the modern social formation of capitalist societies in order to be understood

deeply the structure, the formation, and the function in the last analysis of the state and state

political power in the context of class struggle.

103
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Althusser, Louis: (1997) “Reading capital” London: Verso / originally published as "Lire le

capital" by François Maspero, (1968).

Althusser, Louis: (1984) “Essays on ideology” London: Verso.

Althusser, Louis: (1977) “Lenin and philosophy and other essays” translated from the French by
Ben Brewster. London: NLB.

Althusser, Louis: (1972) “Politics and history: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Hegel and Marx” / (by)
Louis Althusser; translated from the French by Ben Brewster. London: NLB.

Althusser, Louis: (1969) “For Marx” Allen Lane The Penguin Press.

Arendt, Hannah: (1972) “Crises of the Republic: lying in politics, civil disobedience on violence,
thoughts on politics, and revolution” New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Becker, Howard Saul: (1963) “Outsiders: studies in the sociology of deviance” New York: Free
Press.

Blumer, Herbert: (1969) “Symbolic Interactionism, Perspective and Method” USA: University of
California Press.

Blumer, Herbert: (1962) “Society as Symbolic Interaction”, in Arnold M. Rose: Human Behavior
and Social Process: An Interactionist Approach. Houghton-Mifflin.

Bonger, William: (1905) “Criminality and Economic Conditions” Two chapters from
Criminality and Economic Conditions by Dr. William Adrian Bonger, Professor of Law,
Amsterdam University, 1916, published as a pamphlet by the Political Economy Club,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada; Available from: http://www.marxists.org/archive/index.htm Accessed:
18/09/07.

Bourdieu, Pierre: (1984) “Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste”; translated by
Richard Nice. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984/ First published in French as "La
Distinction: critique social du jugement". Paris: Les Editions de Minuit, 1979.

Bryman, Alan: (2004) “Social research methods” Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chambliss, W & Seidman, R: (1971) “Law, Order, and Power” Reading, Mass: Addison-
Wesley.

Craib, Ian: (1992) “Modern social theory: from Parsons to Habermas” /Ian Craib. New
York; London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Durkheim, Emile: (1964) “The division of labor in society” /translated by George Simpson, The
Free Press.

104
Durkheim, Emile: (1938) “The rules of Sociological Method” /translated by S. A. Solavay and J.
H. Mueller, New York: Free Press.

Durkheim, Emile: (1938) “Suicide” /translated by S. A. Solavay and J. H. Mueller, New York:
Free Press

Domhoff, G. William: (1967) “Who rules America?” /by G. William Domhoff Prentice-Hall.

Foucault, Michel: (2003) “Society Must be Defended” by Michel Foucault (trans. David Macey),
London: Allen Lane, Penguin Press (1976, 2003)

Foucault, Michel: (2002) “Power: essential works of Foucault 1954-1984” /Michel Foucault;

edited by James D. Faubion ; translated by Robert Hurley and others. London: Penguin

Foucault, Michel: (1999) “O Megalos Egkleismos” / Michel Foucault; Collection from the four-
volume work: “Dits et ecrits 1954-1988” par Michel Foucault, for the Greek edition: Athens:
Black List.

Foucault, Michel: (1991a) “Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison” / translated from the
French by Alan Sheridan, Reprinted in Penguin Books. First published as Surveiller et punir:
Naissance de la prison by Editions Gallimard 1975.

Foucault, Michel: (1991b) “Microphysics of Power”/ translated from the French by Lila
Troulinou, Athens: Ypsilon/Biblia.

Foucault, Michel: (1980) “Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings, 1972-
1977” /Michel Foucault; edited by Colin Gordon. New York; London: Harvester
Wheatsheaf, 1980

Giddens, Anthony: “Capitalism and modern social theory: an analysis of the writings of Marx,
Durkheim and Max Weber” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gilbert, Dennis: (1997) “American Class Structure in an Age of Growing Inequality” Wadsworth

Godelier, Maurice: (1986) “The mental and the material: thought economy and society” /by
Maurice Godelier 1934; (translated by Martin Thom). London: Verso.

Godelier, Maurice: (1972) “Rationality and irrationality in economics” / (by) Maurice Godelier;

translated from the French by Brian Pearce. London: NLB, 1972 Translation of 'Rationalité et
irrationalité en économie'. Paris, Maspero, 1966.

Goffman, Erving: (1963) “Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity” Prentice-Hall.

Goffman, Erving: (1961) “Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other
Inmates” New York, Doubleday.

Goffman, Erving: (1959) “The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life” University of Edinburgh
Social Sciences Research Centre.

Gramsci, Antonio: (1988) “A Gramsci reader: selected writings 1916-1935” /edited by David
Forgacs, London: Lawrence and Wishart.

105
Gramsci, Antonio: (1971) “Selections from the prison notebooks” /edited and translated by
Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith. New York: International Publishers.

Hammersley, M. and P. Atkinson: (1995) “Ethnography: Principles in Practice”, 2nd ed.

London: Routledge.

Hegel, G.W.F: (2005) “Philosophy of Right” /Translated by S.W.Dyde, The original German
work was first published in Berlin in 1821 under the title Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts,
Dover Publications.

Hobsbawm, Eric John: (1975) “The age of capital, 1848-1875” London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson.

Hobsbawm, Eric John: (1962) “The age of revolution: Europe 1789-1848” London: Weidenfeld
& Nicolson.

Howitt, Dennis and Cramer Duncan: (2004a) “An introduction to statistics in

psychology” Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Howitt, Dennis and Cramer Duncan: (2004b) “Introduction to SPSS in psychology”

Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Lukács, György: (1971) “History and class consciousness: studies in Marxist dialectics” /Georg
Lukács; translated by Rodney Livingstone. London: Merlin Press.

Maguire, M, Morgan, R, and Reiner, R: (2002) “The Oxford Handbook of Criminology” /third
edition, Oxford University Press.

Marx, Karl: (1970a) “Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of right” London: Cambridge U.P. 'Based

on the German edition in "Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels/Werke" (Institut für Marxismus-
Leninismus beim Zentralkomittee der Sozialistischen Einheitspartei Deutschlands, Band 1,
Berlin, Dietz Verlag, 1964), pp.203-333' - preface. Available from:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/index.htm Accessed: 18/09/07.

Marx, Karl: (1999) “The poverty of philosophy” 1847/by Karl Marx; with an introduction by
Frederick Engels. London: Martin Lawrence. Available from:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/index.htm Accessed: 18/09/07.

Marx, Karl: (1970b) “The German ideology” /by K. Marx and F. Engels Part 1 with selections
from parts 2 and 3 together with Marx's Introduction to a critique of political economy ; edited by
C.J. Arthur, International Publishers. Available from: http://www.marxists.org/archive/index.htm
Accessed: 18/09/07.

Marx, Karl: (1998) “The Communist Manifesto” /Karl Marx and Frederick Engels; with an
introduction by Eric Hobsbawm, London: Verso, 1998. Available from:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/index.htm Accessed: 18/09/07.

106
Marx, Karl: (1971) “A contribution to the critique of political economy” London: Lawrence and
Wishart, 1971 Originally published as 'Zur Kritik der politischen Oekonomie' Berlin. Available
from: http://www.marxists.org/archive/index.htm Accessed: 18/09/07.

Marx, Karl: (1999) “Capital” Available from: http://www.marxists.org/archive/index.htm

Accessed: 18/09/07.
Mead, George Herbert: (1967) “Mind, self and society: from the standpoint of a social
behaviourist” Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Poulantzas, Nicos: (1978) “State, power, socialism” / [by] Nicos Poulantzas; translated by Patrick
Camiller, London: New Left Books, 1978 Translation of: 'L'etat, le pouvoir, le socialisme'. Paris:
Presses Universitaires de France, 1978.

Poulantzas, Nicos: (1975) “Classes in contemporary capitalism” / (by) Nicos Poulantzas;

translated from the French by David Fernbach, London: NLB, 1975 Translation of, 'Les Classes
sociales dans le capitalisme aujourd'hui'. Paris, Editions du Seuil, 1974. 

Poulantzas, Nicos: (1973) “Political power and social classes” /(by) Nicos Poulantzas;
translation from the French edited by) Timothy O'Hagan. London: NLB, 1973 Translation of
"Pouvoir Politique et classes sociales". Paris: Maspero, 1968-1971.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques: (1997) “The social contract and other later political writings”
/Rousseau; edited and translated by Victor Gourevitch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rubin's, I. I: (1908) “Essays on Marx's Theory of Value” chapter seven Marx’s development of
the theory of fetishism. Available from: http://www.marxists.org/archive/index.htm Accessed:
18/09/07.

Thompson, W. & Hickey, J: (2005) “Society in Focus” Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon

Webb, E. J. et al: (1966) “Unobtrusive Measures: Non-Reactive Research in the Social Sciences”
Chicago: Rand McNally.

Weber, Max: (1992) “The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism” translated by Talcott
Parsons; introduction by Anthony Giddens. London: Routledge, 1992, originally published 1930. 

ARTICLES

Bob Sutcliffe: (2007) “Postscript to the article ‘World inequality and globalization’ ” Oxford
Review of Economic Policy, Spring 2004, (April. 2007).

Merton, Robert: (1938) “Social Structure and Anomie” American Sociological Review 3 (Oct.
1938): 672-82.

107
MANUSCRIPTS

Wolff, E. N. (2004) “Changes in Household Wealth in the 1980s and 1990s in the U.S.”
Unpublished manuscript. Available from: G. William Domhoff: Available from:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html Accessed: 18/09/07.

PUBLICATIONS

(E.U ICS): (2005) “The Burden of Crime in the E.U. Research Report: A Comparative Analysis
of the European Survey of Crime and Safety” Available from:
http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/publications.php Accessed: 18/9/07.

Eurostat Statistical Books (2007): “Europe in Figures” Eurostat yearbook 2006-07, Available
from: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu Accessed: 18/09/07.

Home Office Statistical Bulletin: (2007) “Crime in England and Wales 2006/07”, Available
from: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds Accessed: 18/09/07.

King’s College London, International Centre for Prison Studies: (2007) “World Prison
Population List (sixth edition)”, Available from: www.prisonstudies.org Accessed 18/09/07.

National Statistical Service of Greece: (2007) “Statistical Yearbook 2005” Available from:
http://www.statistics.gr/main.asp Accessed: 18/09/07.

Office for National Statistics: (2007) “Social Trends” No. 37, 2007 edition, Editors: Abigail Self
Linda Zealey, Available from: www.statistics.gov.uk Accessed 18/09/07.

United Nations Development Programme: (2007) “Human Development Report 2006: Beyond
scarcity: Power, poverty and the global water crisis”,
http://www.wider.unu.edu/pressrelease/pressrelease.htm Accessed: 18/09/07.

World Institute for Development Economics Research: (2007) “Inequality, Growth and Poverty
in the Era of Liberalization and Globalization” Policy Brief No. 4, UNU World Institute for
Development Economics Research (UNU/WIDER).

World Institute for Development Economics Research: (2007) “The World Distribution of
Household Wealth” United Nations University (UNU-WIDER), Available from:
www.wider.unu.edu Accessed: 18/09/07.

WEBOGRAPHY

Economic and Social Data Service: Available from: http://www.esds.ac.uk/ Accessed: 18/09/07.

European Commission: Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm Accessed: 18/09/07.

108
Eurostat: Available from: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu Accessed: 18/09/07.

Encyclopedia of the Nations: Available from: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/ Accessed:

18/09/07.

Federal Bureau of Prisons: Available from: http://www.bop.gov/ Accessed: 18/09/07.

General Secretariat Of National Statistical Service Of Greece: Available from:

http://www.statistics.gr/main.asp Accessed: 18/09/07.

Greek Ministry of Justice: Available from: http://www.ministryofjustice.gr/index.php Accessed:

18/09/07.

Home Office: Available from: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds Accessed: 18/09/07.

Human Development Reports: Available from: http://hdr.undp.org/ Accessed: 18/09/07.

ICVS - International Crime Victims Surveys: Available from:

http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/publications.php Accessed: 18/9/07.

King’s College London, University of London, International Centre for Prison Studies: Available
from: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/rel/icps/ Accessed: 18/09/07.

Marxists Internet Archive Library: Available from: http://www.marxists.org/archive/index.htm

Accessed: 18/09/07.

National Statistics Online: Available from: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ Accessed: 18/09/07.

Safer Foundation: Available from: http://www.saferfoundation.org/viewpage.asp?id=353

Accessed: 18/09/07.

The Scottish Government: Scottish Executive: Available from:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/stats/bulletins/00121-55.asp Accessed: 18/09/07.

The White House, Economic Statistics Briefing Room: Available from:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/income.html and http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/esbr.html
Accessed: 18/9/07.

The World Bank: Available from: http://www.worldbank.org/ Accessed: 18/09/07.

United Nations University: Available from: http://www.unu.edu/ and

http://www.wider.unu.edu/pressrelease/pressrelease.htm Accessed: 18/09/07.

United States Census Bureau: Available from: http://www.census.gov/ Accessed: 18/09/07.

United for a Fair Economy Organisation: Available from: http://faireconomy.org/ Accessed:

18/09/07.

University of California at Santa Cruz, Department of Sociology, Professor G. William Domhoff:

Available from: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html Accessed:
18/09/07.

109
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics: Available
from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html Accessed: 18/09/07.

U.S Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences: Available from:

http://nces.ed.gov/index.asp Accessed: 18/09/07.

World Resources Institute: Available from: http://www.wri.org/ Accessed: 18/09/07.

Wikipedia: Available from: http://www.wikipedia.org Accessed: 18/09/07.

110
© 2007 Fotis M. Kantartzis

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

111