Psychological Jurisprudence, Normative Philosophy, and Trans-Desistance Theory
| Author | Bruce A. Arrigo |
| DOI | 10.1177/0093854814550023 |
| Published date | 01 January 2015 |
| Date | 01 January 2015 |
| Subject Matter | Response to Crime |
research-article2014
Responding To CRime
psychological Jurisprudence, normative philosophy,
and Trans-desistance Theory
BRUCE A. ARRIgO
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
For more than two decades, the diagnostic and cultural insights of psychological jurisprudence (PJ) have informed social
theory, clinical practice, and public policy. As a form of heterodox criticism, PJ probes the relationship between human
agency and social structure, and it examines how both are informed by and co-produce extant reality. This article explores
the utility of PJ—especially as a basis to reconfigure the problem of crime, to redefine institutional responses to it, and to
reconceive the process of desistance. To accomplish this objective, the article addresses two issues. First, it explains how the
diagnostic and cultural footing of PJ functions as philosophical critique concerning the subject of crime. Second, it demon-
strates how this critique represents the grounding of an ethic with considerable relevance for developing a normative theory
of trans-desistance. The article concludes by suggesting how the normative dimensions of trans-desistance portend dynamic
change for future criminal justice practice and mental health treatment.
Keywords: crime; psychological jurisprudence; normative philosophy; trans-desistance theory; society of captives; criminal
justice practice; mental health treatment
Psychological jurisprudence (PJ) is a cross-disciplinary approach to diagnostic inquiry
and cultural critique (Birgden, 2014). The diagnosis and critique provide a unique
assessment of subjectivity (i.e., the in-and-of-society self; the social person). This assess-
ment explains the influencing presence of aesthetics, epistemology, ethics, and ontology in
the constitution of subjectivity. In the theory of PJ, these presences are said to be interactive,
mutually supporting, and co-productive (Arrigo, Bersot, & Sellers, 2011). Stated differ-
ently, these influences powerfully, although often pre-reflectively, contribute to subjectivi-
ty’s assemblage (Deleuze, 1983) and structuration (i.e., co-constitution; giddens, 1986).
Regrettably, academic criminologists, mental health treatment specialists, community
workers, and public policy analysts often fail to consider how the assembling of these pres-
ences both co-shapes and factors into the official problem of crime (Henry & Milovanovic,
AuThoRs’ noTe: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bruce A. Arrigo,
Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC
28223; e-mail: barrigo@uncc.edu.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2015, Vol. 42, No. 1, January 2015, 7 –18.
DOI: 10.1177/0093854814550023
© 2014 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology
7
8 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR
1996), the construction of institutionally certified responses to offender behavior (Crewe,
2013), and the prescribed process of desistance (e.g., Farrall & Calverley, 2006).
As a form of philosophical dissent, PJ has demonstrated considerable resilience. In recent
years, it has been used to further socio-legal theory (Arrigo, 2011b), to redirect clinical acu-
men (Arrigo, 2013a), to advance institutional best practices (Bersot & Arrigo, 2011; Sellers
& Arrigo, 2009), and to promote public policy reform (Trull & Arrigo, in press). These
efforts demonstrate how PJ’s diagnostic analysis and cultural criticism represent an origi-
nal, sensible, and timely approach to ameliorating human social problems, especially those
that are situated at the crossroads of criminal justice practice and mental health treatment
(Birgden, 2014). Indeed, as Ward (2013) observed when describing the relevance of PJ,
[It is composed of] significant epistemological, economic, social, cultural, psychological, and
ethical strands [reminding us] that we are under the spell of . . . contestable, and specific
[renditions of reality] . . .. The crucial issue is [one of diagnosing] the relationship [among
those cultural forces] . . . that reinforce, and in a sense constitute, [finite depictions of
subjectivity]. By understanding how these factors dynamically interact . . . it may be possible
to open up a conceptual space for considering alternative ways of dealing with atypical human
behavior. (p. 704)
What has yet to be assessed by proponents of PJ is how its clinical diagnostics and cul-
tural criticism provide the grounding of a normative philosophy with considerable relevance
for developing a trans-desistance theory in offender treatment.1 As subsequently made evi-
dent, this theory reconfigures the response to crime, redefines its institutional curatives and
correctives, and reconceives the process (i.e., the method) of desistance. Indeed, this is a
theory that dramatically recasts the subject of crime. As proposed herein, trans-desistance
endorses the view that “to desist from crime, ex-offenders need to develop a coherent, pro-
social identity for themselves” (Maruna, 2001, p. 8). As such, this article explains how the
philosophy of PJ can be used to recognize the offender, to reconstruct the social person’s
identity, and to readdress the subject of crime. First, I summarize how PJ functions as both
a form of diagnostic inquiry and as a type of cultural criticism. Second, I describe how the
diagnostic insights and cultural dimensions of PJ form the bases of an underlying ethic
whose values are consistent with and relevant for developing a normative theory of trans-
desistance. I conclude by tentatively proposing how these collective observations portend a
new and much-needed direction in offender recovery and transformation with wholesale
reformist implications for future criminal justice practice and mental health treatment.
psyChologiCAl JuRispRudenCe: CliniCAl diAgnosTiCs And
CulTuRAl CRiTiCism
PJ represents a radical perspective and a heterodox critique whose object of inquiry is
human social capital (Marx, 1993) or the productivity of subjectivity (Deleuze, 1983). As
philosophy, PJ is rooted in the continental rather than the analytic tradition (Arrigo, 2012).
The continental tradition rejects excessive reliance on empiricism or scientism as the only
basis to explain phenomena (Crewe, 2013). Moreover, it emphasizes historicism (i.e., the
importance of symbols and signs, languages and codes, practices and customs) as a pre-
ferred method by which to account for the vagaries of possible experience (Arrigo &
Milovanovic, 2009). Still further, it identifies prospects for human social change
Arrigo / RESPONSE TO CRIME AND PSyCHOLOgICAL JURISPRUDENCE 9
(e.g., restoration and transformation) as rooted in consciousness and its emancipation
(Hardie-Bick & Lippens, 2011). And finally, it recognizes the socio-cultural embeddedness
of knowledge, science, reality, and so on, especially within institutional decision making
(Polizzi, Braswell, & Draper, 2014). Thus, the continental tradition yields a unique type of
clinical diagnosis regarding the status of the human social project, and an alternative form
of cultural criticism regarding the forces that forestall its progress or foreclose its possibili-
ties. As philosophical dissent, PJ examines the complexities of phenomena such as the
industries of madness and reason (Bersot & Arrigo, 2011), the trade in crime and responsi-
bility (Sellers & Arrigo, 2009), and the politics of citizenship and social justice (Trull &
Arrigo, in press) in ways not found in more positivistic analytical accounts.
The productivity of subjectivity occurs by harnessing and then unleashing untapped pos-
sibilities in human relatedness (Deleuze, 1983). These are the possibilities of being and
becoming more fully human. These possibilities long for recognition, coherence, and legiti-
macy in and through the journey of desistance (Arrigo & Milovanovic, 2009). When made
manifest, these protean relations of humanness represent nascent expressions of being and
becoming for a “people yet to come” (Deleuze & guattari, 1994, p. 108).
In the lexicon of PJ, being more fully human is the product of the social person engaged
in a different process of recovery. What is recovered is a latent but powerful (i.e., freeing)
humanness. This potency makes its presence felt through incipient manifestations of authen-
tic human relatedness. This is the power to be and to relate another way or ever more
humanly (Nietzsche, 1988/1968). What is restored is a resting and yet to be realized quality
of freedom that, when channeled, contributes to the emergence of a radicalized form of
subjectivity (Cornell, 1998). In the lexicon of PJ, becoming more fully human is the product
of the social person engaged in a different method of transformation. What is transformed
is a hidden but powerful (i.e., freeing) humanness. This potency makes its presence felt
through adaptive manifestations of dynamic human relatedness. This is the power to evolve
in being human or to become otherwise than being (Levinas, 2004). What is transformed is
an awaiting but non-activated quality of freedom that, when released, contributes to the
emergence of a radicalized form of subjectivity (Cornell, 1988). From the perspective of PJ,
the interdependent, mutually supporting, and co-productive presence of (a) incipient authen-
tic recovery in human relatedness and (b) adaptive dynamic transformation in human...
To continue reading
Request your trial