NCJ Number
177877
Journal
Theoretical Criminology Volume: 3 Issue: 2 Dated: May 1999 Pages: 175-196
Date Published
1999
Length
22 pages
Annotation
This paper examines possible reasons for the unusual degree of incoherence and volatility in contemporary penal policy and practice.
Abstract
Garland (1996) views this incoherence and volatility as evidence of the limits of the sovereign state, and Simon (1995) considers it a sign of the postmodern disintegration of modern penality; others explain it in terms of the emergence of advanced liberalism and neo-liberal politics. This article argues that the current incoherence and volatility in penal policy is better understood in terms of the contradictory elements of "New Right" politics. Broadly, the New Right consists of two distinct and competing trends of thought: a neo-conservative social authoritarian strand and a neo-liberal free market strand. The resulting alliance, although usually referred to as neo-liberal in current criminology, is in practice far less coherent than a single political rationality. Neo-conservatism is probably the source of much of the emphasis on order and discipline that is attributed to neo-liberalism in recent criminology. For neo- conservatives, discipline is essential for the social good. The nature of the political alliance between neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism extends the repertoire of penal policies and practices simultaneously in "nostalgic" (neo-conservative) and "innovative" (neo-liberal) directions, resulting in considerable incoherence. At the same time, the conservative orientation in state authoritarian strategies and the neo-liberal leaning toward market and private-sector governance could account for the volatility. This analysis calls into question some of the explanations based on more fundamental social transformations. 64 references