Analyse and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Cultural Criminology in
relation to the criticisms made by Roger Matthews.
The present essay aims to discuss and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Cultural
Criminology, whilst considering the criticisms made by Roger Matthews. First, the main aims
of Cultural Criminology will be explained and analysed. After which, both the positive and
negative aspects of this approach will be discussed and argued; alongside this, the criticisms
made by Roger Matthews will be discussed. Overall, it is argued that whilst Cultural
Criminology aims to gain a richer understanding of crime, in actuality it only portrays a
shallow, subjective account of the experiences of petty criminals and fails to have much
effect on policy change or the wider environment of crime.
Cultural Criminology attempts to explain crime by understanding the context that it is set in
(Hayward, 2004). It argues that we cannot rely on the statistics and quantitative analysis to
understand the problem of crime, instead cultural criminologists use ethnographic accounts
and Max Werber’s concept of verstehen (Morrison, 2006) to try to understand the lived
experiences and meanings behind crimes being committed (Matthews, 2014). Cultural
criminologists argue that modern criminology relies too much on data analysis and statistics
(Ferrell, 2009), methods that are inadequate to measure human behaviour. Ferrell (2009)
also argues that modern criminology “props up the very institutions that underlie the crisis
itself”, whereby it ues statistics and figures from institutions like the media and police who
can skew and choose what to report to fit their own agendas. Instead, cultural criminologists
believe that crime is a response to the culture that it exists in. Acts such as graffiti and gang
membership are ways for the population to challenge those in power and challenge the
status quo (Steinmetz et al., 2017). Cultural Criminology attempts to look under the surface
and restores the concept of crime as a social construct. A key belief of Cultural Criminology
is that crime is not a calculated, callous act, nor is it mindlessly undertaken. Instead, crime is
a response both to boredom and a lack of opportunity as well as a protest to authority and
the capitalist post-modern society we live in (Ferrell,1999). Cultural Criminology investigates
the lived experience of crime, how it empowers and allows the individual to be “seen” by
criminologists (Hayward, 2016).
One strength proposed is that Cultural Criminology focuses on the lived experiences of
individuals committing the crime. This is important because facts and figures do not often
reflect the current situation as the real statistics may be far from what is being reported
(Brame et al., 2010), this can be either due to under-reporting or agencies (such as the
police force) inflating or under-reporting to meet quotas or reinforce messages portrayed by
the media (Kidd-Hewitt, 2002). This is evidently an issue because if the statistics that are
being reported are incorrect, a real picture of what trends are occurring in crime or the
motivations behind crimes can never be seen. If we do not know the origins and motivations
behind crime, we cannot begin to fix the issue. Cultural criminologists instead use
ethnographic research methods to look at the lived experiences of social groups and the
motivations that drive their actions, for example in Ferrel’s (2001) book on anarchist groups
involved in spatial resistance. This allows for rich data to be obtained that does not aim to fit
into any agenda being pushed by the government or media in an attempt to win favour or as
an attempt to cause moral panic (Thompson, 2008).
However, criminologists such as Roger Matthews argue that whilst cultural criminologists
often “provide detailed and often colourful depictions” of pop-culture and the motivations of
these groups, they fail to recognise them in the wider cultural contexts that they are from.
Matthews argues that since there is no definitive definition of culture provided by culture
criminologists, they have free reign to make “sweeping generalisations about the wider
, contexts in which crime occurs” (Matthews, 2014). He also argues that cultural criminologists
are too selective in which cultures they celebrate and which they oppose. He states that they
celebrate urban culture and demonise high culture, viewing this in an overwhelmingly
negative light as the ones that hold the power. Ultimately, Matthews argues that this
reinforces the very concept that Cultural Criminology attempts to fight against, that those in
the upper classes hold all of the power and cannot be “dethroned” (Matthews, 2014).
Hayward (2016) argues this point however and suggests that critics such as Matthews are
targeting early Cultural Criminology (which Hayward himself acknowledges had little
structural analysis), whereas modern Cultural Criminology has begun to look across social
classes and are employing more rigorous methodologies. Matthews’ (2010) response is that
the use of ethnographic research is “thin, inconsistent [and] vague”; the use of “sweeping
generalisations” about what culture is and a lack of standardisation between researchers
means that any data found has “little policy relevance” (Matthews, 2010; Matthews, 2014).
Matthews (2010) states that it is not enough to just critique ideologies and talk about
empowerment, there is a need to change the material conditions that cause the behaviour.
Hayward (2016) agrees with Matthews critique that “good ethnography must be separated
from bad” but argues the suggested effect that it could have by critiquing the possible
dangers of bad quantitative data. As suggested by Currie (2012), there is a danger in the
wrong interpretation of quantitative data or methods that are inadequate to collect rich data
in a “true form”. It is in this sense that Cultural Criminology can be suggested to be
successful in collecting true data where quantitative methods cannot. However, when
collecting qualitative data, it is important to gather as much data from numerous sources
before making generalisations (due to the existence of social desirability bias) (Diefenbach,
2009).
Matthews (2014) does give credit to Cultural Criminology for the enriched data it collects. He
uses the example of different countries reacting to different crimes more or less severely
than others to argue that crime is not homogenous and instead it requires an understanding
of the culture and societal factors that affect the view of crime. He suggests that Cultural
Criminology’s focus on looking at the cultural factors establishes a much broader and richer
view of crime analysis than just looking at statistics alone. However, he argues that the links
that cultural criminologists make are often weak and inductive. An example of this Matthews
(2014) presents is that they focus on “agency” of people but do not account for the effects
that prevailing power structures have on limiting and shaping actions. Instead, Matthews
says that cultural criminologists blame it on global capitalism, a “tenuous” link that does not
reflect the real trend of crime decreasing drastically since the 1990s.
Alongside this, Matthews (2014) argues that cultural criminologists focus on petty crimes
such as vandalism and graffiti, instead of focussing on bigger issues and the wider world of
crime. Cultural criminologists often frame crime as occurring between the actor (the
offender) and control agencies (the police), with the control agencies often criminalising
behaviour that is suggested to just creative expression (Matthews, 2014). Matthews argues
however that these “graffiti artists” are no Banksys who are painting colour murals or pieces
of art with meaning, instead most are just spraying large tags of their initials. These are
unsightly and are often heavily opposed by the communities that they occur in. Cultural
criminologists argue that these are acts of transgression against authority and societies rules
however Matthews (2014) argues that the majority of these “criminals” are not destabilising
the social order, nor are they revolutionaries. Therefore, this claim from cultural
criminologists that individuals are engaging in criminal acts to critique the authority’s power
is an exaggeration and instead reinforces the very ideologies of the power exclusively being
with the powerful that cultural criminologists are trying to combat.
relation to the criticisms made by Roger Matthews.
The present essay aims to discuss and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Cultural
Criminology, whilst considering the criticisms made by Roger Matthews. First, the main aims
of Cultural Criminology will be explained and analysed. After which, both the positive and
negative aspects of this approach will be discussed and argued; alongside this, the criticisms
made by Roger Matthews will be discussed. Overall, it is argued that whilst Cultural
Criminology aims to gain a richer understanding of crime, in actuality it only portrays a
shallow, subjective account of the experiences of petty criminals and fails to have much
effect on policy change or the wider environment of crime.
Cultural Criminology attempts to explain crime by understanding the context that it is set in
(Hayward, 2004). It argues that we cannot rely on the statistics and quantitative analysis to
understand the problem of crime, instead cultural criminologists use ethnographic accounts
and Max Werber’s concept of verstehen (Morrison, 2006) to try to understand the lived
experiences and meanings behind crimes being committed (Matthews, 2014). Cultural
criminologists argue that modern criminology relies too much on data analysis and statistics
(Ferrell, 2009), methods that are inadequate to measure human behaviour. Ferrell (2009)
also argues that modern criminology “props up the very institutions that underlie the crisis
itself”, whereby it ues statistics and figures from institutions like the media and police who
can skew and choose what to report to fit their own agendas. Instead, cultural criminologists
believe that crime is a response to the culture that it exists in. Acts such as graffiti and gang
membership are ways for the population to challenge those in power and challenge the
status quo (Steinmetz et al., 2017). Cultural Criminology attempts to look under the surface
and restores the concept of crime as a social construct. A key belief of Cultural Criminology
is that crime is not a calculated, callous act, nor is it mindlessly undertaken. Instead, crime is
a response both to boredom and a lack of opportunity as well as a protest to authority and
the capitalist post-modern society we live in (Ferrell,1999). Cultural Criminology investigates
the lived experience of crime, how it empowers and allows the individual to be “seen” by
criminologists (Hayward, 2016).
One strength proposed is that Cultural Criminology focuses on the lived experiences of
individuals committing the crime. This is important because facts and figures do not often
reflect the current situation as the real statistics may be far from what is being reported
(Brame et al., 2010), this can be either due to under-reporting or agencies (such as the
police force) inflating or under-reporting to meet quotas or reinforce messages portrayed by
the media (Kidd-Hewitt, 2002). This is evidently an issue because if the statistics that are
being reported are incorrect, a real picture of what trends are occurring in crime or the
motivations behind crimes can never be seen. If we do not know the origins and motivations
behind crime, we cannot begin to fix the issue. Cultural criminologists instead use
ethnographic research methods to look at the lived experiences of social groups and the
motivations that drive their actions, for example in Ferrel’s (2001) book on anarchist groups
involved in spatial resistance. This allows for rich data to be obtained that does not aim to fit
into any agenda being pushed by the government or media in an attempt to win favour or as
an attempt to cause moral panic (Thompson, 2008).
However, criminologists such as Roger Matthews argue that whilst cultural criminologists
often “provide detailed and often colourful depictions” of pop-culture and the motivations of
these groups, they fail to recognise them in the wider cultural contexts that they are from.
Matthews argues that since there is no definitive definition of culture provided by culture
criminologists, they have free reign to make “sweeping generalisations about the wider
, contexts in which crime occurs” (Matthews, 2014). He also argues that cultural criminologists
are too selective in which cultures they celebrate and which they oppose. He states that they
celebrate urban culture and demonise high culture, viewing this in an overwhelmingly
negative light as the ones that hold the power. Ultimately, Matthews argues that this
reinforces the very concept that Cultural Criminology attempts to fight against, that those in
the upper classes hold all of the power and cannot be “dethroned” (Matthews, 2014).
Hayward (2016) argues this point however and suggests that critics such as Matthews are
targeting early Cultural Criminology (which Hayward himself acknowledges had little
structural analysis), whereas modern Cultural Criminology has begun to look across social
classes and are employing more rigorous methodologies. Matthews’ (2010) response is that
the use of ethnographic research is “thin, inconsistent [and] vague”; the use of “sweeping
generalisations” about what culture is and a lack of standardisation between researchers
means that any data found has “little policy relevance” (Matthews, 2010; Matthews, 2014).
Matthews (2010) states that it is not enough to just critique ideologies and talk about
empowerment, there is a need to change the material conditions that cause the behaviour.
Hayward (2016) agrees with Matthews critique that “good ethnography must be separated
from bad” but argues the suggested effect that it could have by critiquing the possible
dangers of bad quantitative data. As suggested by Currie (2012), there is a danger in the
wrong interpretation of quantitative data or methods that are inadequate to collect rich data
in a “true form”. It is in this sense that Cultural Criminology can be suggested to be
successful in collecting true data where quantitative methods cannot. However, when
collecting qualitative data, it is important to gather as much data from numerous sources
before making generalisations (due to the existence of social desirability bias) (Diefenbach,
2009).
Matthews (2014) does give credit to Cultural Criminology for the enriched data it collects. He
uses the example of different countries reacting to different crimes more or less severely
than others to argue that crime is not homogenous and instead it requires an understanding
of the culture and societal factors that affect the view of crime. He suggests that Cultural
Criminology’s focus on looking at the cultural factors establishes a much broader and richer
view of crime analysis than just looking at statistics alone. However, he argues that the links
that cultural criminologists make are often weak and inductive. An example of this Matthews
(2014) presents is that they focus on “agency” of people but do not account for the effects
that prevailing power structures have on limiting and shaping actions. Instead, Matthews
says that cultural criminologists blame it on global capitalism, a “tenuous” link that does not
reflect the real trend of crime decreasing drastically since the 1990s.
Alongside this, Matthews (2014) argues that cultural criminologists focus on petty crimes
such as vandalism and graffiti, instead of focussing on bigger issues and the wider world of
crime. Cultural criminologists often frame crime as occurring between the actor (the
offender) and control agencies (the police), with the control agencies often criminalising
behaviour that is suggested to just creative expression (Matthews, 2014). Matthews argues
however that these “graffiti artists” are no Banksys who are painting colour murals or pieces
of art with meaning, instead most are just spraying large tags of their initials. These are
unsightly and are often heavily opposed by the communities that they occur in. Cultural
criminologists argue that these are acts of transgression against authority and societies rules
however Matthews (2014) argues that the majority of these “criminals” are not destabilising
the social order, nor are they revolutionaries. Therefore, this claim from cultural
criminologists that individuals are engaging in criminal acts to critique the authority’s power
is an exaggeration and instead reinforces the very ideologies of the power exclusively being
with the powerful that cultural criminologists are trying to combat.
