Why we need a “sensory criminology”

This dates back to January of this year: it argues in favour of what is variously called cultural, sensory or (perhaps more specifically) documentary criminology. To stop the pain, sometimes to want in the first place – as a society – to begin to stop it, clearly will require us to collectively begin to feel it. No?

[Mils' Life/Work Lab.]

Building on David Redmon’s brilliant teasing out and description of “documentary criminology” and its purpose and reason for existing, I would like to push the idea forwards.

I wrote in a previous post that I preferred the concept of a “sensory criminology”, going further than Redmon’s position in order to be able to use language shared only by the creator/academic.

The idea that the observer cannot divide the language they use from the object observed – a constant of the latter part of 20th century thinking – can in part, in this way, at least for the audience examining, watching and pursuing the creations in question, be dismissed.

At the very least, until and if they fathom the “language” thrust on them out of such a blue. (In a sense, also nicely describing the relationship between avant-garde and society!)

At this point, of course, it begins to be shared between…

View original post 423 more words


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s