Among my favorite nonfiction scholarly books is Austin T. Turk’s Political Criminality(1982). This volume presents a well thought out analysis of why individuals resort to crimes against states (and other similar entities) and how they respond. At its core, it is an exploration of power dynamics, with a focus on political deviance and the state’s response to threats to authority.
Turk, one of my undergraduate and graduate student mentors, was a deep thinker and proflic writer. He had an important influence on my ideas about political crime, and was the author of the foreword to my Controlling State Crime (1995/2000).
Political Criminality—like Turk’s earlier work, Criminality and Legal Order(1969)—synthesizes a vast array of scholarship on criminology, political violence, and conflict, bringing these strands of thought together into a meaningful and cohesive whole.
Political Criminality, consists of five well-sourced chapters, and in addition to its deep theoretical content, Turk’s writing remains remarkably accessible. He sought to provide a “general introductory analysis” of the relationship between political criminality and political policing, but his work goes far beyond an introductory overview. At its heart, Turk’s conflict theory of political crime is concerned with the relative power between competing actors. As Turk asserts, “Having power in a social relationship means having some relative control over the resources available to persons in that relationship” (p. 14). This central tenet of his theory is critical for understanding how the law and criminal justice system are employed to maintain social control and political power.
One of the most compelling aspects of Political Criminality is Turk’s examination of how states use legal systems to criminalize certain actions as a means of maintaining authority and suppressing dissent. He explores how these laws shape public opinion regarding dissenters and so-called lawbreakers. In doing so, Turk touches on a wide range of political conflicts, from assassinations to wars, offering a comprehensive look at the many forms political defiance can take. He was one of the first scholars to delve deeply into how states strategically employ the criminal justice system to reinforce power structures and suppress challenges to authority.
However, despite the groundbreaking nature of his work, few of the tenants of Political Criminality have been empirically tested. This could be due in part to the interdisciplinary nature of Turk’s theory, which spans the fields of criminology, political science, and sociology. The lack of empirical attention might also reflect a broader trend in academic scholarship, where interdisciplinary theories sometimes fall between the cracks of disciplinary boundaries.
Even though empirical testing is lacking, Turk’s work remains highly relevant, particularly given the current global political climate, where activists struggle for attention and power, and states continue to use legal mechanisms to suppress dissent and maintain control. Political Criminality offers a timeless framework for understanding the complex interplay between power, law, and crime.
The book is an important cornerstone of my approach to scholarship. Turk’s ability to synthesize a large body of scholarship into a cohesive and accessible explanation is something I have strived to emulate in my own work. Though the book may not have garnered the empirical attention it deserves, its intellectual rigor and interdisciplinary approach ensure that it remains a crucial text for anyone studying political crime and state power.
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_6402-scaled.jpg25602377Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2024-09-29 13:18:442024-09-29 13:18:44Appreciating Turk’s POLITICAL CRIMINALITY: THE DEFIANCE AND DEFENSE OF AUTHORITY
Language (more specifically the labels, terms, and words we use) plays a critical role in shaping how we understand and engage with the world. The words we use not only shape the subject matter we talk about, but also carry political weight, that affects perceptions and reinforces power dynamics. In this context, debates about terminology are not just academic exercises—they have real consequences for how issues are framed and addressed in policy and practice.
The Misunderstanding of Terms
It’s tempting to attribute misunderstandings surrounding the labels, terms and words we and others use solely to differences in age, culture, education, gender, ethnic/racial background, national origin, but the issue is far more complex. Disagreements about words and terms occur in numerous contexts, and these disputes can arise for various interrelated reasons. These include, but are not limited to:
Lack of Knowledge or Expertise: In many cases, people do not know the correct definitions of terms. This may due to poor or a lack of education or exposure to specialized fields. Thus misapplication of terms in this case, reflects a lack of literacy in the subject matter, and is unintentional.
Overconfidence in Misunderstanding: Sometimes, individuals are aware of the proper definitions but choose to disregard them. This may stem from an overconfidence in their own understanding, laziness, or a refusal to acknowledge expert knowledge.
Political Sensitivity and Correctness: Occasionally people (e.g., activists) adopt popular terminology in an effort to be politically sensitive (i.e., correct) or to align with current societal trends. This approach, while intended to reduce offense, can introduce ambiguities or further complicate discourse, particularly when the new terms lack consensus or clarity.
Influence of Non-experts: Amateurs may have the power to shape discourse through public platforms. Meanwhile experts either lack the same opportunities or choose not to engage. As a result, the terminology used by non-experts may gain traction, even when it conflicts with established definitions in various fields.
Carelessness: Occasionally, people use terms incorrectly out of carelessness or convenience. Until they are corrected or experience embarrassment, they may not see a need to learn the correct terms. This casual approach can perpetuate misunderstandings.
The Politics of Language
In short, terminology is never neutral; it typically reflects and reinforces power dynamics. Those in positions of authority, influence or power often determine which terms are accepted within a field or context, while marginalized individuals and groups may struggle to have their preferred language recognized and used. In the field of criminology and criminal justice, for example, word choice is particularly significant, as it shapes the narratives (i.e., the stories we tell ourselves and others) surrounding criminal behavior, justice, and punishment.
For instance, consider the terminology used to describe individuals in the correctional system: convict, prisoner, inmate, and incarcerated person. Technically these terms are not interchangeable—they carry different connotations (among different groups) and often reflect differing ideological perspectives. Although many academic criminologists may collapse the terms convict, prisoner and inmate, people who are incarcerated and correctional personnel may see important distinctions among these labels. Meanwhile many prison activists feel that terms like prisoner or inmate are dehumanizing, thus they often push for language that they argue humanizes those in the criminal justice system (i.e., person centered language). The struggle over which term to use is not just a linguistic debate, but a reflection of deeper disagreements about the nature of the criminal justice system itself.
Language in Academic Publishing
The power of language is not just manifested in in public discourse, or in the classroom, but extends to scholarly work as well. Ideally, peer reviewers and editors play a gatekeeping function, ensuring that authors use terms in a precise and appropriate manner, and that any misapplications are corrected before publication.However, despite this vetting mechanism, terms that are poorly defined or misapplied occasionally make it into published works.
Not only does this create confusion, but this is particularly concerning in criminology/criminology, where academic research attempts to inform public policy. When key terms in criminological literature are used ambiguously or incorrectly, it can distort public understanding and policymaking. For example, the interchangeable use of rehabilitation and reform in discussions about correctional practices can lead to mixed messages about the objectives of criminal justice interventions.
Language and the Criminal Justice System
How does this debate play out in the dominant branches of the criminal justice system?
In the field of corrections, the debate over terms such as convict, prisoner, and inmate typically highlights the tensions between activists and criminologists. Activists often advocate for language that reduces stigma, while criminologists, for the sake of clarity, historical continuity, or conformity to legal definitions, may adhere to more traditional terminology.
Similarly, in policing, terms like cop versus police officer can carry different connotations. Depending on the context, the term cop might be seen as informal or even derogatory, while police or law enforcement officer carries an air of professionalism. Yet, some activists and community groups may prefer terms like cop to criticize traditional narratives about law enforcement.
In juvenile justice, terms like juvenile delinquent versus youth in conflict with the law are often part of deeper ideological positions about how young people in the system should be viewed and treated. The former label carries a punitive connotation, while the latter suggests a more rehabilitative approach.
Addressing Misunderstandings and Moving beyond language politics
Language is more than just a means of communication—it’s a reflection of power, politics, and ideology. In fields like criminology and criminal justice, the choice of terms can have profound implications for research, policy, public perception, and practical application.
Where does this put us? Both people must remain vigilant in their word choices, fully understanding that terminology shapes not only debates but also the reality experienced by those affected by these terms. Academic institutions, peer reviewers, editors of scholarly publications, and educators, and students, in particular should prioritize linguistic precision, ensuring that terms are well-defined and used consistently. Additionally, all entities should remain open to re-evaluating established terms, particularly as society evolves, new information is gathered, and new perspectives emerge.
It’s not enough to merely correct misunderstandings or enforce rigid definitions. The goal should be to foster clarity, fairness, and a genuine commitment to justice. This means acknowledging the power of language and using it responsibly to shape a more just and equitable world.
Photo Credit
Title: Dictionaries
Photographer: eltpics
@HanaTicha
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/10508321036_f54984255c_o-2.jpg426568Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2024-09-22 12:32:092024-09-22 12:32:09The Power of Language in Criminal Justice
The Slow Food movement, which began in the mid-1980s in Bra, Italy, was a response to the rise of fast food and industrialized eating. Spearheaded by Carlo Petrini, an Italian activist and author, it encouraged people to embrace traditional cooking methods and a slower, more deliberate approach to food preparation.
Predictably many articles and books were written, restaurants opened, and celebrity chefs championed the concept.
Over time, this idea expanded beyond food, into broader cultural values, emphasizing the importance of slowing down to savor life.Today, the word “slow” has entered the cultural zeitgeist, and now associated with doing work of high quality, and done with care, and thoughtfulness
In several areas of life, slowing down makes sense. In academia, for instance, the profession I work in, taking the time to collect data, analyze it using appropriate methods, writing up one’s findings, and then subjecting the paper to peer review is crucial. Using this approach leads to a steady accumulation of knowledge and occasional breakthroughs.
However, when it comes to restaurants, not all slow cooking is a virtue. Sometimes slowness in food preparation isn’t a sign of quality—it’s a sign of inefficiency, low skill levels, or poor planning. This can include: sitting in a restaurant, waiting for what feels like forever for a meal that eventually arrives, long waiting times between courses, or people at your table getting their food at significantly different times. Assuming that the dysfunction is not a result of miscommunication between the front of the house (the wait and serving staff) and the back of the house (the kitchen), the problem here isn’t the concept of slow cooking, but rather a kitchen that doesn’t have its act together.
All this to say, is that there’s a fine line between a deliberate, well-executed slow-cooked meal and a disorganized kitchen that simply can’t keep up. While the former elevates the dining experience, the latter leaves customers frustrated and unsatisfied. More specifically, not every meal that seems to take an extra ordinary time to be cooked means the chef and their cooking staff is taking extra care—sometimes, it just means the kitchen is poorly managed.
Cross cutting through this argument is the economic realities of running a restaurant. Although some high-end establishments succeed with slow dining models by offering limited seating and charging premium prices, most places can’t afford the luxury of having only one seating per night. For them, slowness can jeopardize economic viability.
So, while the Slow Food movement offers valuable lessons about authenticity, patience, and quality, it’s important to recognize that not all slowness is a sign of craft. In some cases, slowness is simply a symptom of inefficiency. Just because a meal takes longer to prepare doesn’t always mean it’s better.
Ultimately, the difference between thoughtful slowness and outright inefficiency comes down to intention. Is the chef (and kitchen staff, if they exist) deliberately slowing things down to enhance the flavors and the experience? Or is the kitchen simply unable to keep up with orders? As with many things in life, context matters. Slowness is only a virtue when it’s done with purpose and planning—whether in a restaurant kitchen, an academic setting, or beyond.
Photo Credit
The Three Stooges from “Half-Shot Shooters” (1936).
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2024-09-14-at-11.09.14 PM.png650864Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2024-09-15 12:06:272024-09-15 16:29:06Is It Slow Food or an Inefficient Kitchen?
Appreciating Turk’s POLITICAL CRIMINALITY: THE DEFIANCE AND DEFENSE OF AUTHORITY
/by Jeffrey Ian RossAmong my favorite nonfiction scholarly books is Austin T. Turk’s Political Criminality (1982). This volume presents a well thought out analysis of why individuals resort to crimes against states (and other similar entities) and how they respond. At its core, it is an exploration of power dynamics, with a focus on political deviance and the state’s response to threats to authority.
Turk, one of my undergraduate and graduate student mentors, was a deep thinker and proflic writer. He had an important influence on my ideas about political crime, and was the author of the foreword to my Controlling State Crime (1995/2000).
Political Criminality, like Gurr’s Why Men Rebel, is one of the primary works that shaped my understanding of how to construct explanations of political crime, and it served as the inspiration for my Dynamics of Political Crime (2002) and An Introduction to Political Crime. (2012).
More about the book.
Political Criminality—like Turk’s earlier work, Criminality and Legal Order (1969)—synthesizes a vast array of scholarship on criminology, political violence, and conflict, bringing these strands of thought together into a meaningful and cohesive whole.
Political Criminality, consists of five well-sourced chapters, and in addition to its deep theoretical content, Turk’s writing remains remarkably accessible. He sought to provide a “general introductory analysis” of the relationship between political criminality and political policing, but his work goes far beyond an introductory overview. At its heart, Turk’s conflict theory of political crime is concerned with the relative power between competing actors. As Turk asserts, “Having power in a social relationship means having some relative control over the resources available to persons in that relationship” (p. 14). This central tenet of his theory is critical for understanding how the law and criminal justice system are employed to maintain social control and political power.
One of the most compelling aspects of Political Criminality is Turk’s examination of how states use legal systems to criminalize certain actions as a means of maintaining authority and suppressing dissent. He explores how these laws shape public opinion regarding dissenters and so-called lawbreakers. In doing so, Turk touches on a wide range of political conflicts, from assassinations to wars, offering a comprehensive look at the many forms political defiance can take. He was one of the first scholars to delve deeply into how states strategically employ the criminal justice system to reinforce power structures and suppress challenges to authority.
However, despite the groundbreaking nature of his work, few of the tenants of Political Criminality have been empirically tested. This could be due in part to the interdisciplinary nature of Turk’s theory, which spans the fields of criminology, political science, and sociology. The lack of empirical attention might also reflect a broader trend in academic scholarship, where interdisciplinary theories sometimes fall between the cracks of disciplinary boundaries.
Even though empirical testing is lacking, Turk’s work remains highly relevant, particularly given the current global political climate, where activists struggle for attention and power, and states continue to use legal mechanisms to suppress dissent and maintain control. Political Criminality offers a timeless framework for understanding the complex interplay between power, law, and crime.
The book is an important cornerstone of my approach to scholarship. Turk’s ability to synthesize a large body of scholarship into a cohesive and accessible explanation is something I have strived to emulate in my own work. Though the book may not have garnered the empirical attention it deserves, its intellectual rigor and interdisciplinary approach ensure that it remains a crucial text for anyone studying political crime and state power.
The Power of Language in Criminal Justice
/by Jeffrey Ian RossLanguage (more specifically the labels, terms, and words we use) plays a critical role in shaping how we understand and engage with the world. The words we use not only shape the subject matter we talk about, but also carry political weight, that affects perceptions and reinforces power dynamics. In this context, debates about terminology are not just academic exercises—they have real consequences for how issues are framed and addressed in policy and practice.
The Misunderstanding of Terms
It’s tempting to attribute misunderstandings surrounding the labels, terms and words we and others use solely to differences in age, culture, education, gender, ethnic/racial background, national origin, but the issue is far more complex. Disagreements about words and terms occur in numerous contexts, and these disputes can arise for various interrelated reasons. These include, but are not limited to:
Lack of Knowledge or Expertise: In many cases, people do not know the correct definitions of terms. This may due to poor or a lack of education or exposure to specialized fields. Thus misapplication of terms in this case, reflects a lack of literacy in the subject matter, and is unintentional.
Overconfidence in Misunderstanding: Sometimes, individuals are aware of the proper definitions but choose to disregard them. This may stem from an overconfidence in their own understanding, laziness, or a refusal to acknowledge expert knowledge.
Political Sensitivity and Correctness: Occasionally people (e.g., activists) adopt popular terminology in an effort to be politically sensitive (i.e., correct) or to align with current societal trends. This approach, while intended to reduce offense, can introduce ambiguities or further complicate discourse, particularly when the new terms lack consensus or clarity.
Influence of Non-experts: Amateurs may have the power to shape discourse through public platforms. Meanwhile experts either lack the same opportunities or choose not to engage. As a result, the terminology used by non-experts may gain traction, even when it conflicts with established definitions in various fields.
Carelessness: Occasionally, people use terms incorrectly out of carelessness or convenience. Until they are corrected or experience embarrassment, they may not see a need to learn the correct terms. This casual approach can perpetuate misunderstandings.
The Politics of Language
In short, terminology is never neutral; it typically reflects and reinforces power dynamics. Those in positions of authority, influence or power often determine which terms are accepted within a field or context, while marginalized individuals and groups may struggle to have their preferred language recognized and used. In the field of criminology and criminal justice, for example, word choice is particularly significant, as it shapes the narratives (i.e., the stories we tell ourselves and others) surrounding criminal behavior, justice, and punishment.
For instance, consider the terminology used to describe individuals in the correctional system: convict, prisoner, inmate, and incarcerated person. Technically these terms are not interchangeable—they carry different connotations (among different groups) and often reflect differing ideological perspectives. Although many academic criminologists may collapse the terms convict, prisoner and inmate, people who are incarcerated and correctional personnel may see important distinctions among these labels. Meanwhile many prison activists feel that terms like prisoner or inmate are dehumanizing, thus they often push for language that they argue humanizes those in the criminal justice system (i.e., person centered language). The struggle over which term to use is not just a linguistic debate, but a reflection of deeper disagreements about the nature of the criminal justice system itself.
Language in Academic Publishing
The power of language is not just manifested in in public discourse, or in the classroom, but extends to scholarly work as well. Ideally, peer reviewers and editors play a gatekeeping function, ensuring that authors use terms in a precise and appropriate manner, and that any misapplications are corrected before publication.However, despite this vetting mechanism, terms that are poorly defined or misapplied occasionally make it into published works.
Not only does this create confusion, but this is particularly concerning in criminology/criminology, where academic research attempts to inform public policy. When key terms in criminological literature are used ambiguously or incorrectly, it can distort public understanding and policymaking. For example, the interchangeable use of rehabilitation and reform in discussions about correctional practices can lead to mixed messages about the objectives of criminal justice interventions.
Language and the Criminal Justice System
How does this debate play out in the dominant branches of the criminal justice system?
In the field of corrections, the debate over terms such as convict, prisoner, and inmate typically highlights the tensions between activists and criminologists. Activists often advocate for language that reduces stigma, while criminologists, for the sake of clarity, historical continuity, or conformity to legal definitions, may adhere to more traditional terminology.
Similarly, in policing, terms like cop versus police officer can carry different connotations. Depending on the context, the term cop might be seen as informal or even derogatory, while police or law enforcement officer carries an air of professionalism. Yet, some activists and community groups may prefer terms like cop to criticize traditional narratives about law enforcement.
In juvenile justice, terms like juvenile delinquent versus youth in conflict with the law are often part of deeper ideological positions about how young people in the system should be viewed and treated. The former label carries a punitive connotation, while the latter suggests a more rehabilitative approach.
Addressing Misunderstandings and Moving beyond language politics
Language is more than just a means of communication—it’s a reflection of power, politics, and ideology. In fields like criminology and criminal justice, the choice of terms can have profound implications for research, policy, public perception, and practical application.
Where does this put us? Both people must remain vigilant in their word choices, fully understanding that terminology shapes not only debates but also the reality experienced by those affected by these terms. Academic institutions, peer reviewers, editors of scholarly publications, and educators, and students, in particular should prioritize linguistic precision, ensuring that terms are well-defined and used consistently. Additionally, all entities should remain open to re-evaluating established terms, particularly as society evolves, new information is gathered, and new perspectives emerge.
It’s not enough to merely correct misunderstandings or enforce rigid definitions. The goal should be to foster clarity, fairness, and a genuine commitment to justice. This means acknowledging the power of language and using it responsibly to shape a more just and equitable world.
Photo Credit
Title: Dictionaries
Photographer: eltpics
@HanaTicha
Is It Slow Food or an Inefficient Kitchen?
/by Jeffrey Ian RossThe Slow Food movement, which began in the mid-1980s in Bra, Italy, was a response to the rise of fast food and industrialized eating. Spearheaded by Carlo Petrini, an Italian activist and author, it encouraged people to embrace traditional cooking methods and a slower, more deliberate approach to food preparation.
Predictably many articles and books were written, restaurants opened, and celebrity chefs championed the concept.
Over time, this idea expanded beyond food, into broader cultural values, emphasizing the importance of slowing down to savor life. Today, the word “slow” has entered the cultural zeitgeist, and now associated with doing work of high quality, and done with care, and thoughtfulness
In several areas of life, slowing down makes sense. In academia, for instance, the profession I work in, taking the time to collect data, analyze it using appropriate methods, writing up one’s findings, and then subjecting the paper to peer review is crucial. Using this approach leads to a steady accumulation of knowledge and occasional breakthroughs.
However, when it comes to restaurants, not all slow cooking is a virtue. Sometimes slowness in food preparation isn’t a sign of quality—it’s a sign of inefficiency, low skill levels, or poor planning. This can include: sitting in a restaurant, waiting for what feels like forever for a meal that eventually arrives, long waiting times between courses, or people at your table getting their food at significantly different times. Assuming that the dysfunction is not a result of miscommunication between the front of the house (the wait and serving staff) and the back of the house (the kitchen), the problem here isn’t the concept of slow cooking, but rather a kitchen that doesn’t have its act together.
All this to say, is that there’s a fine line between a deliberate, well-executed slow-cooked meal and a disorganized kitchen that simply can’t keep up. While the former elevates the dining experience, the latter leaves customers frustrated and unsatisfied. More specifically, not every meal that seems to take an extra ordinary time to be cooked means the chef and their cooking staff is taking extra care—sometimes, it just means the kitchen is poorly managed.
Cross cutting through this argument is the economic realities of running a restaurant. Although some high-end establishments succeed with slow dining models by offering limited seating and charging premium prices, most places can’t afford the luxury of having only one seating per night. For them, slowness can jeopardize economic viability.
So, while the Slow Food movement offers valuable lessons about authenticity, patience, and quality, it’s important to recognize that not all slowness is a sign of craft. In some cases, slowness is simply a symptom of inefficiency. Just because a meal takes longer to prepare doesn’t always mean it’s better.
Ultimately, the difference between thoughtful slowness and outright inefficiency comes down to intention. Is the chef (and kitchen staff, if they exist) deliberately slowing things down to enhance the flavors and the experience? Or is the kitchen simply unable to keep up with orders? As with many things in life, context matters. Slowness is only a virtue when it’s done with purpose and planning—whether in a restaurant kitchen, an academic setting, or beyond.
Photo Credit
The Three Stooges from “Half-Shot Shooters” (1936).