Sven-Åke Lindgren

Social Constructionism and Criminology: Traditions, Problems and Possibilities

There will be disagreement and debate among academicians, governmental officials, law enforcement, the media, and the general public regarding the perspective from which one should view the events of September 11. Some will argue that they were an act of war; others will say they are a local crime, an international conspiracy, terrorism in its classical meaning, or a myriad of other possibilities. 1 The FBI classifies these deaths as homicides, but treats them and the victims, which total 3,047, in a special report separately from the statistical presentation of ‘ordinary’ homicides, inter alia by reference to the fact that their number would distort the annual statistics (with an increase of approximately 20%). In the case of the bomb attack in Oklahoma City in 1995, the FBI chose to include the 168 deaths in the routine statistics of homicides (involving an increase of slightly under 1%). Conklin (2003:10) contends that the exclusion of the 9/11 deaths from the national crime statistics indicates that the FBI nonetheless regards them as the result of an act of war, rather than as cases of ‘local crime’. Federal Bureau of Investigation 2002:302 In this article it is stressed that social constructionism is a heterogeneous perspective. It can be applied as an alternative programme with far‐reaching meta‐theoretical implications, but also as an approach with more limited and pragmatic orientations. Historically, its roots can be traced to two divergent philosophical traditions—an interpretive and a structuralist one. Thus many social constructionist features exist for criminology, like social sciences in general, to evaluate and build on. It is argued that current social constructionism offers possible answers to questions at the forefront of the criminological research agenda. Central is the timeless issue of what constitutes a crime, as well as other urgent problems posed by empirical social conditions and by the intra‐scientific state of affairs. However, for this potential to be realized, social constructionism must develop in an integrative direction and begin to present more of an established voice than rebellious iconoclasm.

Juvenile school firesetting in Sweden: causes and countermeasures

Deliberately set school fires cause significant economic, material, and social damage to society. This article aims to contribute to a sociological understanding and explanation of school fires set by juveniles and to the development of effective prevention strategies based on the results obtained. The study draws upon comprehensive empirical data from qualitative and quantitative research consisting of a questionnaire survey, substantive interviews, and document analysis. The findings show firesetting to be a complex, multifaceted phenomenon, which calls for a diversified approach to prevention relying on structural, situational, and social interventions. While juveniles setting schools on fire appear in many respects to be similar to other youths engaged in delinquent behaviours in society, the fires they set can be internally categorized according to firesetting motive, offender characteristics, and modus operandi. The implications of the resulting typology of six main types of school fires for prevention work are discussed, with practical suggestions for effective countermeasures offered.