Criminology’s unlikely autonomy: a historical and methodological incursion

Abstract

The shaping of the history of a scientific discipline – in this case, criminology – is useful both for memory purposes and the modern-day positioning of its protagonists. Efforts to such effects in a field therefore often make noble use of ‘great authors” and their leading publications or the ‘great moments” of rupture, which are often proclaimed rather than effective, and with which I have engaged in the first section of this article. Such materials are of prime importance; however they often contribute to the building of a ‘mundane” history prioritizing a representation of science that is heroic (emphasizing the leading names to have made decisive contributions to the evolution of science) or paradigmatic (organizing history in terms of a succession of greater scientific events demonstrating an indisputable evolution). Rather than challenging the significance of these two ways of shaping and retelling history, in the second section of the article I present an alternative method and the results produced. Despite those who would contest the scientific basis for this method, it allows us to go beyond the linear and cumulative reconstructions according to which ‘the timeline of the history of ideas is merely the development of acquisitions”. If we rely on paradoxical positivist pre-requisites, it also allows us to test the scientific autonomy of the trajectory of criminology.