You mentioned that Marxist historians coined the term 'social crime' in the 1960s. While having a left-leaning world view myself, I always considered the view of Marxist scholars on crime to be overly romantic. Marxist historians and criminologists alike often regard crime as a revelutionary act, and the criminal as a rebel fighting against the powerful. They tend to ignore that volume crimes like theft, robbery, and violent crime are mostly intra-class: the poor against the poor.
Marxist historians and criminologists might be a good example for confirmation bias in the social sciences.
I agree with everything you say! If I were feeling cynical, I might point out that Marxist historians, of course, were for then most part pretty middle-class types who were not at all vulnerable to theft, robbery, and so on. It's relatively easy to romanticise criminals when you are not prey to them. The poor are exactly the most likely to become victims, as you rightly point out (not least because, like everyone else, criminals tend not to enjoy commuting, so commit crimes reasonably close to where they live). Good point about confirmation bias: certainly that would be worth looking into.
Thank you very much for your kind words. I always love reading everyone's thoughts about these posts.
It is ironic that many self-declared representatives of the working class did not come from a working class background themselves, let alone have ever worked hard physically. I once heard the term 'salon socialist' and found it quite suiting.
Indeed. Often I hear politicians and pundits say things that make me think 'There's someone who has never gone hungry'. Do you think there is something there to do with that very recent notion, luxury beliefs? Might be.
You mentioned that Marxist historians coined the term 'social crime' in the 1960s. While having a left-leaning world view myself, I always considered the view of Marxist scholars on crime to be overly romantic. Marxist historians and criminologists alike often regard crime as a revelutionary act, and the criminal as a rebel fighting against the powerful. They tend to ignore that volume crimes like theft, robbery, and violent crime are mostly intra-class: the poor against the poor.
Marxist historians and criminologists might be a good example for confirmation bias in the social sciences.
Thanks for this interesting text
I agree with everything you say! If I were feeling cynical, I might point out that Marxist historians, of course, were for then most part pretty middle-class types who were not at all vulnerable to theft, robbery, and so on. It's relatively easy to romanticise criminals when you are not prey to them. The poor are exactly the most likely to become victims, as you rightly point out (not least because, like everyone else, criminals tend not to enjoy commuting, so commit crimes reasonably close to where they live). Good point about confirmation bias: certainly that would be worth looking into.
Thank you very much for your kind words. I always love reading everyone's thoughts about these posts.
It is ironic that many self-declared representatives of the working class did not come from a working class background themselves, let alone have ever worked hard physically. I once heard the term 'salon socialist' and found it quite suiting.
Indeed. Often I hear politicians and pundits say things that make me think 'There's someone who has never gone hungry'. Do you think there is something there to do with that very recent notion, luxury beliefs? Might be.