In a thought-provoking piece on the support her discipline gave to colonialism, Wendy James (1998) refers to anthropologists as ‘reluctant imperialists’, meaning that their support for the colonising enterprise was unplanned or unintentional. James contends that any support was the result of anthropologists wanting to ‘do good’ by the colonised, and by doing so they inadvertently provided empirical support and intellectual sustenance for the colonial enterprise. Personally, I think that is a load of self-serving rubbish. However, I am even more reluctant to accept similar arguments on behalf of criminologists, especially those who choose to support the neo-colonial state, who avoid direct engagement with Indigenous peoples, and yet deem to speak with authority on ‘the Aboriginal/Indigenous problem’.
Some Australasian criminologists might consider this position a little harsh. They might even attempt to argue that we should consider the contemporary situation facing the academy, the pressure of increasing class sizes, the continued retrenchment of teaching resources, and the impact of the managerialist movement and the commercialisation of the academy over the past twenty years; all of which has resulted in significant expectation that academics will chase grant and contract funding. Undoubtedly, the recent hegemony attained by academic managerialism has had a demonstrable impact on the academy in New Zealand and Australia, especially as the primary source of external research grants for the social sciences is central government (Tauri, 2009). And so perhaps we shouldn’t be too harsh on our hard-done-by criminologists if all they are doing is chasing the easy money which is, in the Australasian context, research that criminalises Indigenous peoples. Continue reading The Cultural Imperialism of Australasian Criminology