Abstract
Few within the field of sociology doubt the enduring significance of C. Wright Mills and his continuing relevance in the development of vibrant sociological inquiry. The contributors to C. Wright Mills and the Criminological Imagination, edited by Jon Frauley, aim to convince readers of the necessity, the value, and the worth of a Millsian perspective for criminology. They succeed splendidly in this venture. The thirteen contributors from Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States represent the fields of criminal justice, criminology, law, social theory, and sociology. Together they demonstrate the possibilities of a more creative and engaged criminology, one that Elliott Currie, in the book’s Foreword, sharply contrasts with the dominant version constricted by scientism. This book steers the path Mills proposed between abstract empiricism and grand theory and poses new opportunities for the field by returning to the basic analysis and values he articulated so powerfully.
Following an editor’s introduction, which outlines the purpose and structure of the volume, the book divides into three sections. The first reviews and assesses the current and future role of a criminological imagination rooted in the classic work of Mills. This part includes an article by Frauley that, together with his Introduction, argues that to date Mills has had little impact on criminology or criminal justice studies and that a return to his core perspectives offers a way to renew the field in terms of theorizing and research as well as teaching. It promises a more holistic and historically situated criminology, one that contributes to a critical humanism and engages public debate.
Stephen Pfohl contributes a sophisticated and inventive use of Mills to illuminate our media-saturated culture and its relationship to stereotypes of crime and crime control. Inspired by Mills, Pfohl is attentive to the context of military, corporate, and media power and questions the role of criminology in reinforcing rather than challenging systems of structured inequality. Equally important, he expands on Mills to include, for example, natural history; power as a matrix of gendered, racialized, and class-based forces; and hegemonic forms of control as well as colonial domination. Thus he avoids a mechanical application of what Mills said in 1959 in favor of a creative analysis of the kind of approach Mills was advocating, including a consideration of how criminology might contribute to the struggle for social justice.
Frank P. Williams III sounds the most pessimistic note, contending that the probability of a genuine criminological imagination isa distant possibility. He bases this assessment on the lack of theoretical, historical, and interdisciplinary developments in the field, as well as its entrenched emphasis on methodological technique and mere numbers. It can be read as an utterly gloomy assessment or, as Williams himself may prefer, an urgent plea to “prove him wrong” and begin the transformation of criminology.
The second section explores the theoretical insights of Mills and their empirical implications, while the third and final section shifts the focus to tangible empirical research with an application of the criminological imagination. This structure serves as a reminder of Mills’s conviction that the best social science ultimately integrates both theory and empirical research. In Part II, Melanie White offers an excellent explication of Mills’ sociological imagination, but Part III is, I believe, the more intriguing of the two. In this section, David Scott, for example, discusses his research on prison officers and reflects on the significance of Mills’s work in pondering the values researchers need to acknowledge and self-consciously employ in their empirical work. In a superb article, Alana Barton and Howard Davis discuss how Mills’s notions of critical consciousness are undermined by the influence of neoliberalism on higher education and the implications for criminology in particular. Read this essay for an incisive understanding of the value, indeed, the necessity, of Mills and his imagination for our students and us.
An essay by Rob White focuses attention on climate change, arguing that criminology must pay explicit attention to global warming, defining it as a crime of ecocide that impacts children most severely. White refers briefly to Mills, and although his analysis is surely Millsian in its efforts, other articles in this volume provide more elucidation of Mills and more explicit enhancement of his work. Other essays in this final section use Mills to argue the value to criminology of an analysis of literature (Stephanie Piamonte) and the significance of a global dimension (David Nelkin).
One theme running through this volume is the unavoidable political dimensions of the work we do as social scientists and the necessity of acknowledging this directly and within a critical framework. In this regard, Mills calls us back to central issues in sociology and criminology, questioning our role as researchers, theorists, and teachers in the face of urgent social problems. He challenges us not only to the highest professional standards in the practice of our craft but reminds us as well of the obligations of every individual to be part of an informed struggle for justice. This approach encourages a transformative criminology that produces thoughtful, imaginative, and critical knowledge, while rejecting the technocratic pressures to perform the bureaucratic work of mere technicians or disengaged citizens. This perspective is vital, as Frauley observes, for how we educate our students in criminology and criminal justice and whether we are merely training them to reproduce the status quo or enlivening them with the possibilities of a criminology deeply engaged with pressing social issues. They are the future practitioners in criminal justice and policy development, and the values that will guide their work are inculcated in the criminology classes we teach. Frank Williams argues that currently we do not value or teach the criminological imagination. The question is, can this be otherwise? It seems to me that one just has to look to the “changing face” of criminology that Currie mentions, as well as to the contributors to this volume, to see the possibilities.
In sum, this book demonstrates the value of Mills to the field of criminology and criminal justice, reminding us of fundamental concerns about the meaning of our work and demonstrating how this work may proceed. It invites us to be part of developing a more imaginative criminology, one firmly rooted in the craft Mills advocated, including being part of the solution, not the perpetuation, of local, national, and global social issues. Social scientists and teachers of upper-division courses in criminology, law, and criminal justice will undoubtedly find this volume useful and inspiring.