ABSTRACT
Those working in the critical criminology tradition have been centrally concerned with the social construction, variability and contingency of the criminal label. The concern is no less salient to a consideration of critical criminology itself, and any history of critical criminology (in Australia or elsewhere) should aim itself to be critical in this sense. The point applies with equal force to both of the terms ‘critical’ and ‘criminology’. The want of a stable theoretical object has meant that criminology itself needs to be seen not as a distinct discipline but as a composite intellectual and governmental hybrid, a field of studies that overlaps and intersects many others (sociology, law, psychology, history, anthropology, social work, media studies and youth studies to name only a few). In consequence, much of the most powerful work on subjects of criminological inquiry is undertaken by scholars who do not necessarily define themselves as criminologists first and foremost, or at all. For reasons that should later become obvious this is even more pronounced in the Australian context. Although we may appear at times to be claiming such work for criminology, our purpose is to recognize its impact on and in critical criminology in Australia.
