Conventional Risk Discourse and the Proliferation of Fear

• Author: Robert Carl Schehr
• Published date: 01 March 2005
• Date: 01 March 2005
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0887403404266461
• Subject Matter: Articles

10.1177/0887403404266461CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / March 2005Schehr / YOUTH AT RISK

Conventional Risk Discourse

and the Proliferation of Fear

Robert Carl Schehr

Northern Arizona University

The academic and service provider literaturesaddressing risk, especially youth risk,

have produced an arrayof theoretical and conceptual interpretations consistent with

the perpetuation of fear.It is the author’s contention that conventional risk discourse

serves the ideological purpose of marginalizing undesirable groups,which leads to

the creation and proliferation of technological and behavioralmodes of social con-

trol.The author also contends that dominant cultural interests perpetuate a discourse

of fear that neglectscontemporary insight into structural causes of nonnormative vio-

lent behavior. Structuralprecursors to violence are combined with the complex and

multifaceted matrix of subjective life-world experiences and institutional arrange-

ments that together constitute the contextresponsible for generating family and youth

trauma, and later, risky behavior.

Keywords: youth; risk; fear

The academic and service provider literatures addressing risk, especially

youth risk, have produced an array of theoretical and conceptual interpreta-

tions consistent with the perpetuation of fear. Contemporary articulations

of risk signify rhetorical and political commitments to a discourse of indi-

vidual responsibility with respect to nonnormative behavior and in doing so

tend to obfuscate those factors existing within communities that generate

harmful living conditions disproportionately for the poor and minorities

living in American urban and rural communities.

It is my contention that conventional risk discourse serves the ideologi-

cal purpose of marginalizing undesirable groups, which leads to the cre-

ation and proliferation of technological and behavioral modes of social

control. I also contend that dominant cultural interests perpetuate a dis-

course of fear that neglects contemporary insight into structural causesof

nonnormative violent behavior. Structural precursors to violence are com-

bined with the complex and multifaceted matrix of subjective life-world

38

Criminal Justice Policy Review, Volume 16, Number 1, March 2005 38-58

DOI: 10.1177/0887403404266461

© 2005 Sage Publications

experiences and institutional arrangements that together constitute the con-

text responsible for generating family and youth trauma, and later, risky

behavior.

THE PROBLEM

Punitive criminal justice practices are founded on often-unconscious

assumptions relating to an actor’s free-will determination to behave in

nonnormative ways. Criminal justice institutions then assume actuarial

responsibilities in an effort to manage risk. Over the course of the last cen-

tury, sociological analyses of criminogenic behavior challenged the notion

of free will enhancing understanding of the role played by political, eco-

nomic, and cultural variables in the construction of crime. A perpetual frus-

tration of mine, and one shared by numerous scholars invested in the study

of criminology, relates to political recalcitrance when confronted with

insights relating to crime causality emanating from the confluence of the

social and natural sciences. For example, neuropsychological research con-

ducted over the past 15 years has produced notable contributions to the

study of crime, especially violent crime. These scholars (e.g., Alm et al.,

1996; Bambonye, 1996; Blair et al., 1996; Fedora & Reddon, 1993; Hare,

1993; Harris, Rice, & Cormier,1991; Hart, 1998; Myers, Burkett, & Harris,

1995; Raine, O’Brien, Smiley, Scerbo, & Chan, 1990; Zamble & Palmer,

1996) have avoided the pitfalls of their 19th-century predecessors by posit-

ing a symbiotic relationship not only between the physiological develop-

ment of the human being and its environment but also through contempo-

rary application of technology such as positron emission tomography

(PET) and dynamic ultrasonography, as well as the mostrecent adaptations

of Hare’s (1993) Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R). When combined with

the now well grounded articulations of crime causality found in the socio-

logical and social psychological literatures (e.g., Adler & Adler, 2000;

Arrigo, 1999; Barak, 1998; Caulfield & Wonders, 1994; Ferrell & Sanders,

1995; Gibson, 1994; Katz, 1989; Milovanovic, 1997; Rankin & Wells,

1994; Vold, Bernard, & Snipes, 1998) a far more comprehensive set of ana-

lytical tools emerges. Those criminologists who approach the study of

crime through the lens of postmodern and chaos theory (Arrigo & Schehr,

1999; Henry & Milovanovic, 1996, 1999; Milovanovic, 1997; Schehr &

Milovanovic, 1999) have invited theorists and policy makers to adopt an

approach to criminology and policy making that allows for multiple and

intersecting variables. For this purpose, they have adopted the use of the

trouser diagram. Trouser diagrams are offered as an alternative to path

Schehr / YOUTH AT RISK 39