NCJ Number
181697
Journal
Theoretical Criminology Volume: 4 Issue: 1 Dated: February 2000 Pages: 93-111
Date Published
February 2000
Length
19 pages
Annotation
The author responds to David Waddington's reply to the author's critique of the conceptual adequacy and methodological integrity of Waddington's "critical consensus" theory as applied to the riots and picket-line violence in Britain in the 1980's.
Abstract
This response to Waddington's reply argues that the reply is not only an unconvincing defense of the theory, but provides additional ground for expanding the author's original critique. The author argues that conceptually the notion of "precipitating incidents" is inevitably applied ex post facto and also compresses complex patterns of interaction into a single, arbitrary incident; furthermore, it relies on an impoverished notion of the crowd. Methodologically, lack of equivocation and hesitancy are no substitute for careful and systematic recording of what occurs. The "critical consensus" remains not only value-ladened, but advocacy. Moreover, it illustrates a characteristic feature of social movements/moral entrepreneurs: the attempt to "frame" events so as to cast claimants as "victims." Indeed, there seem to be good grounds for regarding the "critical consensus" as simply part of a wider social movement that received political impetus from the riots of the early 1980's. 8 notes and 83 references