Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Theoretical Criminology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by WADDINGTON, P. A.J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Orthodoxy and Advocacy in Criminology

P. A.J. WADDINGTON

University of Reading, UK

In his belated riposte to my critique of the `critical consensus' (P.A.J. Waddington, 1991), David Waddington (1998) seeks to defend the conceptual adequacy and methodological integrity of that position, and especially his own `flashpoints' model (D. Waddington et al., 1987, 1989). In this reply, I demonstrate that not only is his defence unconvincing, but my original critique can be further developed. Conceptually, the notion of `precipitating incidents' is inevitably applied ex post facto, but also compresses complex patterns of interaction into a single, arbitrary incident and, furthermore, relies upon an impoverished notion of the crowd. Methodologically, lack of equivocation and hesitancy are no substitute for careful and systematic recording of what occurs. The `critical consensus' remains not only value-ladened, but advocacy. Moreover, it illustrates a characteristic feature of social movements/moral entrepreneurs: the attempt to `frame' events so as to cast claimants as `victims'. Indeed, there seem to be good grounds for regarding the `critical consensus' as simply part of a wider social movement that received political impetus from the riots of the early 1980s.

Key Words: critical criminology • disorder • flashpoints • inner-city riots • social movements

Theoretical Criminology, Vol. 4, No. 1, 93-111 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/1362480600004001005


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
PolicingHome page
D. Waddington
Seattle and its Aftershock: Some Implications for Theory and Practice
Policing, November 22, 2007; (2007) pam061v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]