ZEMIOLOGY: BEYOND CRIMINOLOGY?
Conference at Dartington, Totnes, Devon 12th and 13th February 1999.
During a person's life-cycle they are going to experience a range of physical and social harms in
different contexts: in the home, on the street, at work and at play. The patterns of harm and the social
background of those affected may vary according to the level of development of their country. The
source of harm will include poverty, malnutrition, war, state violence, pollution, traffic accidents, disease,
crime, work hazards, medical negligence, natural and avoidable disasters. Many of these harms will be
ignored whilst others will be responded to by a number of different agencies. At a national level, for
example, in Britain the response may come from the police, the health and safety executive, social
services and increasingly private organisations. At the international level, human rights organisations
play an important role in responding to social harm.
The aim of this conference is to explore the feasibility and policy potential of moving beyond the analysis
of crime to the study of harm, hence zemiology, which comes from the Greek word zemia meaning harm.
The main objective will be to define what we mean by harm; the contexts in which harm is most likely to
occur; the patterns and extent of harm; and the characteristics of those most likely to experience harm.
A second objective will be to understand why criminology has been so impervious to the substantial
critiques which have been made over many years. To begin with, there is no ontological reality to crime
and the vast majority of events which are dealt with by the criminal justice system would not score
particularly highly on a scale of personal hardship. Moreover, events which do cause serious harm and
appear to be within the embrace of the criminal justice system are either ignored or dealt with in other
arenas. Furthermore, it accepts uncritically key notions of criminal law such as intent and individual
responsibility which play a fundamental role in classifying certain social harms as criminal.
A third objective is to explore whether a new approach would assist in developing a broader and more
effective range of policy responses to the harm which people experience during their life cycle. When a
harmful event is defined as a crime a process of criminalisation is set in motion, foreclosing social policy
and political responses. The criminalisation process - the defining, the collating, the classifying, the
broadcasting, the fortifying and the disposing - is expanding and penetrating deeper into the social
structures of modern societies. Crime control has become an industry, yet it remains extremely
ineffective in providing protection from harm.
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in Britain may exacerbate the emphasis on harms defined through
criminalisation. It makes provision for every local authority to produce a "Crime Audit". The issue,
however, is not just crime but public protection. What is the potential to broaden the remit to produce a
social harm or a public safety audit which might include data on pollution, deaths and injuries at work,
epidemiology and iatrogenesis? Some local authorities are already moving in this direction. The
conference will provide essential information for anyone involved in the Crime Audit.
The fourth objective of the conference will be to discuss the viability and potential of an approach
organised around the concept of social harm. Would such an approach be subject to insoluble
definitional problems? Would it challenge the narrow paradigm of criminology? Would it lead to a
change in emphasis on events which are considered harmful? Would it lead to a decline in the
criminalisation? Would it change the range of responses to social harm?
All participants will be invited to send in advance comments, ideas, reactions prior to the Conference.
These will then be available in the Conference packs. Speakers will be limited to 20 minute
presentations providing ample time for discussion.
Dartington has a long tradition for facilitating radical and innovative ideas in both the social sciences
and the arts. It was built by Richard the Lionheart's brother-in-law in the fourteenth century.
|