Perverse Criminologies: The Closet of Doctor Lombroso
| DOI | 10.1177/a010361 |
| Date | 01 December 1999 |
| Author | Nic Groombridge |
| Published date | 01 December 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
PERVERSE CRIMINOLOGIES:
THE CLOSET OF DOCTOR
LOMBROSO
NIC GROOMBRIDGE
St Mary’s College, Strawberry Hill, London, UK
ABSTRACT
This article argues for the importance of (homo)sexuality to the criminological enter-
prise. It traces a course of criminological engagement with homosexuality from the
works of Lombroso and the early sexologists, through the ‘nuts, sluts and perverts’
period of interactionism to gay activism and polemic against homophobic violence
and discrimination. Criminology is seen to have lumped both the ‘criminal’ and the
‘homosexual’ together in its early manifestation before ceding its interest to medicine
and the law. In criminology’s mid-period, homosexuality is taken up again as part of
the interactionist ‘sociology of deviance’ project before it is dropped again by radi-
cals more interested in the politics of class and race. Currently in criminology sexu-
ality is slowly being granted to women (the young and black were – sometimes
jealously? – assumed to have it already) and homosexuality is increasingly admitted
to the list of victims of crime. What might be the scope within criminology for gay
empiricism, standpointism or ‘queer theory’? Moreover, what might this mean for the
‘masculinity’ turn in some recent criminology?
INTRODUCTION
IT HAS BEEN OBSERVEDthat whilst not all straight men are yobs most
yobs are straight (Tatchell, 1996). As a self-identified criminologist I have
no empirical means to check this polemical claim nor grounds to make
policy recommendations based on it. It would be good to be able to advise
reversing section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 for crime prevention
reasons. Tatchell’s observation should also intrigue those with an interest in
criminology’s relationship with masculinity. Yet is even an empirical concern
for homo and heterosexuality likely to find a welcome in criminology, let
SOCIAL &LEGAL STUDIES 0964 6639 (199912) 8:4 Copyright © 1999
SAGE Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi,
Vol. 8(4), 531–548; 010361
05 Groombridge (jl/d) 28/10/99 1:59 pm Page 531
alone a consciously gay perspective or less still a fully queered criminology
throwing a spanner in the works?
Criminology has a long record of selectively ignoring deviance associated
with new social movements and insights from other disciplines.1There is now
a large body of feminist work in and beside criminology but it remains de-
batable whether it has had much influence. This despite Heidensohn’s (Gels-
thorpe, 1997: 791) claim that, ‘there has been a significant shift in the study of
crime because of feminist perspectives on it’. From a feminist perspective
Gelsthorpe (1997) notes the continued strength of – what Garland (1994) calls
– the Lombrosian and Governmental Projects but also the development of
more theoretically reflexive criminologies which, ‘suggests that there may
now be a convergence of interest between feminism and criminology’ (1997:
529). Gelsthorpe and Heidensohn also note the research on masculinity and
crime which, ‘is likely to provide some very challenging ideas to both crimi-
nology and to feminist perspectives on crime’ (Heidensohn, 1997: 791). The
possible ‘queer’ perspectives presented later would challenge mainstream,
feminist and ‘masculinity’ perspectives (Groombridge, 1998b).
The first evidence of this challenge to criminology might be seen in the addi-
tion of Tony Jefferson’s chapter on ‘Masculinities and Crimes’ to the second
edition of the Oxford Handbook of Criminology – tellingly in the section
‘Frontiers of Criminological Theory’. ‘Race’ and ethnicity are also gate-crash-
ers at the criminological party. Further evidence can be seen in Messerschmidt’s
recognition of the ‘need to bring criminology “out of the closet” by support-
ing extensive historical and contemporary research on the relationship among
sexualities, gender, race, class and crime’ (1997: 119). It remains to be seen
whether anyone will want to be dragged into criminology’s closet. Many prefer
to walk away – having knocked too long at the door – noting, as Smart does,
that ‘it is very hard to see what criminology has to offer feminism’ (1990: 84).
One tactic for queering criminology will be to show the extent to which it
has always been queer through a very selective history of criminology. This
linear – but not straight – approach is not intended to prove that criminol-
ogy has always given proper attention to homosexuality or gay activism but
to establish points at which it might have; points at which the issue arose but
was either bundled back into the closet or too closely bound to ‘deviance’ or
criminality, but points that deserve revisiting now – especially in the light of
the ‘masculinity turn’ of some recent criminology (Collier, 1998).
To the extent that this article is exploratory and polemic, not much space
can be given to definitions, but both ‘queer’ and ‘criminology’ require some
discussion. There are many definitions of ‘queer’ and they differ depending on
whether the concentration is upon the Academy or activism but Healy’s sum-
mation is helpful and partially addresses both aspects: ‘Queer was lesbian and
gay politics catching up with postmodernism’ (1996: 175). As criminology has
caught up with neither lesbian and gay politics nor postmodernism some
further definition is needed here. The criminology discussed here – if only
implicitly – ranges from the ‘common-sense’, moralistic, conservative through
the legal/classical to sub-cultural and even oppositional readings as set out in
532 SOCIAL & LEGAL STUDIES 8(4)
05 Groombridge (jl/d) 28/10/99 1:59 pm Page 532
To continue reading
Request your trial