Differentiate the major theoretical frameworks used in the field of victimology and their impact.
Now that you have some understanding of the categories of victims and social movements that have affected how we think about victimization, we turn to a discussion of several of the broad theoretical frameworks of victimization.
Mawby and Walklate – Critical Victimology, 1994
Mawby and Walklate (1994) looked at victimology as a social phenomenon, drawing parallels between victimology and fields like sociology; their work led to the creation of integrated theoretical frameworks, specifically critical victimology, as a way of explaining victimization. Mawby and Walklate broke victimology into three strains, positive, radical, and critical victimology, showing how the strengths and weaknesses of each could be used to create something better.
Positive victimology identifies the dominant individual and socio-cultural factors that would contribute to victimization (Ben-David, 2000). Its focus tends to be on interpersonal crimes, especially those where there might be victim precipitation. Miers points out that positivist victimology is the
identification of factors which contribute to a non-random pattern of victimization, a focus on interpersonal crimes of violence, and a concern to identify victims who may have contributed to their own victimization. (1989, p. 3)
This framework uses data to ask why some people are more likely to be victims and tends to look more at street crime than other types of crime (Mawby & Walklate, 1994). Many of the early victimology researchers used a positivist approach, including those discussed earlier in this chapter.
Positivists’ definition of victim is solely based on the individual, group, or institution who were directly harmed as the result of a crime, ignoring broader definitions and issues that stem from social hierarchies and realities that relate to crime. This is a major criticism because, as pointed out by Friday (1992, 1993), one cannot remove victimization from its broader social context. It also undermines the efforts of social movements to point out the structural inequalities in the social systems that increase the potential for victimization and the treatment of victims. Yet, many researchers in the field of victimology continue to do positivists work, which when linked with narrative around these social factors give the field a decent understanding of victimization.