Abstract
Two kinds of skepticism-increasingly prevalent in recent social commentary -have spread to criminology. The skepticism of science subjects all ideas to relentless questioning. Another kind of skepticism is colored by political partisanship. In various forms, radical criminology has gained new visibility recently. This paper welcomes this development when it conveys scientific skepticism beyond the "gadfly" functions of partisan skepticism. Among the versions of radical criminology, the Marxist approach blurs the distinction between the two kinds of skepticism and has other characteristics which illustrate the special difficulties for radical criminologists endeavoring to develop a genuine critical theory. Marx had little interest in criminology, requiring his disciples to tear his concepts out of context. Marxian thought has its own contradictions. Consequently, radical criminology is ambivalent in its rejection of liberal values, in presenting subjectivism as the equivalent of scientific analysis of criminological issues, and in inconsistent utilization of Marxist theory. If a radical theory is to emerge, these difficulties must be overcome.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
