Thinking forward through the past: Prospecting for urban order in (Victorian) public parks
| Author | Anna Barker,David Churchill,Adam Crawford |
| DOI | 10.1177/1362480617713986 |
| Published date | 01 November 2018 |
| Date | 01 November 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480617713986
Theoretical Criminology
2018, Vol. 22(4) 523 –544
© The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1362480617713986
journals.sagepub.com/home/tcr
Thinking forward through
the past: Prospecting for
urban order in (Victorian)
public parks
David Churchill, Adam Crawford
and Anna Barker
Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, School of Law, University of Leeds, UK
Abstract
Supplementing familiar linear and chronological accounts of history, we delineate a
novel approach that explores connections between past, present and future. Drawing
on Koselleck, we outline a framework for analysing the interconnected categories of
‘spaces of experience’ and ‘horizons of expectation’ across times. We consider the
visions and anxieties of futures past and futures present; how these are constituted by,
and inform, experiences that have happened and are yet to come. This conceptual
frame is developed through the study of the heritage and lived experiences of a specific
Victorian park within an English city. We analyse the formation of urban order as a lens
to interrogate both the immediate and long-term linkages between past, present and
possible futures. This approach enables us to ground analysis of prospects for urban
relations in historical perspective and to pose fundamental questions about the social
role of urban parks.
Keywords
Futures past, futures present, historical criminology, urban social order, Victorian
parks
Corresponding author:
Adam Crawford, Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, School of Law, University of Leeds, Liberty Building,
Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Email: a.crawford@leeds.ac.uk
713986TCR0010.1177/1362480617713986Theoretical CriminologyChurchill et al.
research-article2017
Article
524 Theoretical Criminology 22(4)
Criminology has been concerned predominantly with describing the present, often with
the intent of influencing the future. This ‘reformist impulse’ (Loader and Sparks, 2011:
6), while an enduring strength, also evinces a preoccupation with the here-and-now.
Historical research plays an indispensable role in helping to overcome this myopic fixa-
tion on the recent. In the face of this ‘chronocentrism’ (Rock, 2005) within much crimi-
nology—variously manifested as ‘presentism’ (Flaatten and Ystenhede, 2014: 138) or
‘epochalism’ (Crawford and Hutchinson, 2016: 1188)—this article explores ways in
which historical insights can be imaginatively harnessed to understand the present and
inform visions of the future. It contributes to a wider effort to stimulate engagement
between criminology and history (Dubber and Valverde, 2006; Lawrence, 2012). While
historians are not devoid of ambitions to understand the present and shape the future,
these often remain implicit—given the conventional focus on studying specific sections
of the past. But claims concerning the contemporary ‘relevance’ of historical perspec-
tives depend not on a deep understanding of a particular period but, as Luhmann (1976:
137) argued, on ‘the capacity to mediate relations between past and future in a present’.
We outline a novel approach, combining analysis of pasts and futures across times, to
enrich criminological understandings of present conditions and future prospects.
Besides the long-term, explanatory survey, which analyses development through
time, Lawrence (2015) highlights two established modes of historical exposition within
criminology, both of which juxtapose past and present, to analyse criminological prob-
lems across times. These are the ‘jarring counterpoint’—in which historical research
calls into question the seeming fixity of present arrangements—and the ‘surprising con-
tinuity’—in which historical analysis interrogates the assumed novelty of contemporary
events or processes. The first challenges entrenched assumptions about particular topics,
often by suggesting an alternative chronology. For example, Bosworth’s (2001) history
of women’s imprisonment—which likens the past to a ‘foreign country’—deploys an
alternative chronology of confinement to challenge assumed connections between crimi-
nological knowledge and practices of incarceration, prompting revised understandings
of contemporary penality. Contrastingly, the ‘surprising continuity’ can serve to high-
light either long-running connections between past and present or the ‘antecedents’ of
contemporary developments. The former is well illustrated by Pearson’s (1983) majestic
Hooligan: A History of Respectable Fears, which debunks comforting myths of a ‘golden
age’ of social consensus. The latter is reflected in Zedner’s (2006: 83) ‘historical juxta-
position’ of Georgian policing and its contemporary counterpart. Such contributions
compare and contrast the present with particular moments in history, to identify similari-
ties and differences which problematize dominant criminological assumptions about the
present, and signal the historical contingency of contemporary criminal justice.
Our purpose is to add to the variety and richness of historical criminology, by sug-
gesting a new mode of historical enquiry, which ranges across times to explore the
interconnections between pasts, presents and futures. At this juncture, we deem it valu-
able to go beyond recent work which reflects critically on existing modes of historical
research (e.g. Garland, 2014; Knepper and Scicluna, 2010), to explore innovative means
of pursuing criminology in an historically informed way. To do this, we enquire more
deeply than previous studies into the nature of historical time. Specifically, we find it
instructive to think of historical time as constituted of multiple forms, speeds or planes
To continue reading
Request your trial