INTRODUCTION
Criminology as a discipline has been mainly developed in the US and other English-speaking countries, such as the UK (Liu, Travers, and Chang Reference Liu, Travers, Chang, Liu, Travers and Chang2017a). Theories and knowledge generated in this cultural context have dominated mainstream criminology (Farrington, Cohn, and Iratzoqui Reference Farrington, Cohn and Iratzoqui2019; Liu, Hebenton, and Jou Reference Liu, Hebenton, Jou, Liu, Hebenton and Jou2013; Moosavi Reference Moosavi2018a). With the expansion of criminology outside the English-speaking world, scholars have started to cast doubts on the applicability of current mainstream criminology in other cultural contexts (Fraser Reference Fraser2013; Ganapathy and Balachandran Reference Ganapathy and Balachandran2016; Liu, Travers, and Chang Reference Liu, Travers, Chang, Liu, Travers and Chang2017b; Moosavi Reference Moosavi2018b) because it has been developed to fit into their English-speaking cultural contexts, failing to account for or reflect various cultural differences (Liu Reference Liu2007). This question has led to a call for an “indigenized” criminology, in which knowledge and discourses are derived from unique cultural contexts in each region.
Asian Criminology has emerged as a part of this trend (Liu and Miyazawa Reference Liu, Miyazawa, Liu and Miyazawa2018; Liu et al. Reference Liu, Travers, Chang, Liu, Travers and Chang2017b; Moosavi Reference Moosavi2018a). It is Liu (Reference Liu2009, Reference Liu2016, Reference Liu2017a, Reference Liu, Liu, Travers and Chang2017b) who should be given credit for the emergence because he has contributed to its development both practically and theoretically. Liu (Reference Liu2009:4) argued the need of an indigenized criminology in Asia because, due to diversity in terms of languages, legal systems and crime control strategies, criminology in Asia requires “a basic understanding of the features of Asian cultures and societies, and how these key features are related to crime and crime control practices.” Liu’s argument influenced prominent criminologists. For instance, Agnew (Reference Agnew2015) and Messner (Reference Messner2015) agreed that their own theories – general strain theory and institutional anomie theory – need to be modified to fit into the Asian cultural context.
However, we see Liu’s Asian Criminology as problematic for developing criminology in Asia. As will be discussed in this paper, to develop Asian criminology Liu (Reference Liu2016, Reference Liu2017a, Reference Liu, Liu, Travers and Chang2017b) focused on cultural distinctions between Asia and the West rather than on the cultural diversity within Asia. While Liu is aware of the problem of simplifying Asia as a “unified region” (Liu Reference Liu, Liu, Travers and Chang2017b:18), Liu (Reference Liu2017a) justified his dichotomic approach to developing criminology in Asia by claiming that more cultural differences exist between Asia and the West than within the Asian culture. In our view, the failure to take into account the cultural diversity within Asia for the development of criminology in Asia is detrimental because significant cultural differences exist within Asia.
As Liu (Reference Liu, Liu, Travers and Chang2017b:17) acknowledged, his approach should not be considered “the only way” to develop criminology in Asia. In this paper, we offer an alternative approach, which we call culture-inclusive criminology. It aims to account for cultural diversity within Asia and functions as a framework by directing attention towards an influential cultural value in each Asian cultural zone. We propose a plausible approach to developing culture-inclusive criminological theory in Asia.
In this paper, we first review the origin, development and current status of Liu’s Asian Criminology. Second, we discuss the challenges inherent in Liu’s Asian Criminology. Finally, we offer an alternative approach to developing criminology in Asia: culture-inclusive criminology. Criminology as a discipline in Asia remains nascent at this stage because criminological knowledge and literature in Asia have only recently started to expand (Belknap Reference Belknap2016; Suzuki, Pai, and Islam Reference Suzuki, Pai and Islam2018). Our paper will contribute to advancing a discussion over the future of criminology in Asia.
ORIGIN, DEVELOPMENT AND CURRENT STATUS OF LIU’S ASIAN CRIMINOLOGY
Liu’s enthusiasm for developing Asian Criminology first (at least in English-written literature) appeared in his 2009 article (Liu Reference Liu2009). In this article, Liu raised a concern about the immature status of criminology in Asia. He attributed this problem to the evidence that “criminologists in Asia engage in their research work and study policy-related topics most often concerning only their own countries and in their own language,” and that “[d]iscourse between Asian criminological scholars tends to be sporadic” (Liu Reference Liu2009:4). What he viewed as problematic was a lack of “a unified paradigm for criminology in Asia” (Liu Reference Liu2009:7). He argued that the development of the mainstream criminology was “supported by its paradigms as it develops” because “[s]hared conceptual frameworks, research approaches, and institutionalization under a unified paradigm greatly promote the rapid growth” of mainstream criminology (Liu Reference Liu2009:7).
Liu suggested a need to develop a paradigm that could be shared by criminologists across Asia. To achieve this aim, he vigorously engaged in various scholarly activities. In collaboration with Broadhurst (Reference Broadhurst2006), Liu launched the Asian Journal of Criminology in 2006, aiming to promote research on criminology and criminal justice in Asia (Broadhurst Reference Broadhurst2006). Analyzing articles published in this journal, Belknap (Reference Belknap2016:257) contended that the journal has “a strong record of publishing criminology and justice studies that have used cutting edge statistical analyses and heroic efforts to collect data.” To facilitate a discussion among criminologists in Asia, Liu also founded the Asian Criminological Society (Liu et al. Reference Liu, Hebenton, Jou, Liu, Hebenton and Jou2013). Since the Society’s first conference in Macao in 2009, the conference has been held annually in different Asian countries, and the number of participants from Asia as well as from other regions has been growing (Liu Reference Liu2017a).
Liu’s contribution to criminology in Asia is not limited to the above achievements. His main contribution is rather a theoretical development of Asian Criminology. This achievement is particularly evident in his Asian Paradigm Theory, which addresses “the key conceptual differences behind institutions and operations of criminal justice systems in Western and Asian societies” (Liu Reference Liu2016:211). To develop this theory, he searched for differences between Asia and the West because he considered that more cultural differences exist between Asia and the West than within Asia (Liu Reference Liu2017a). Specifically, Liu (Reference Liu2016) argued that the fundamental distinction between Asia and the West lies on a continuum between individualism and collectivism. Liu (Reference Liu2016:211) stated, “the Western concepts of crime and justice are individualistic concepts, and the Asian concepts of crime and justice are relational concepts, supported by different value systems.”
In relation to collectivism that, he argues, is prevalent in Asia, Liu (Reference Liu2016) offered three key cultural values that govern ways of thinking and behaviors among Asian people. The first cultural value is attachment because the “intimate environment, feelings, and satisfaction that a personal or group relationship provides” are culturally important in Asia (Liu Reference Liu2016:214). The second cultural value is honor, because Asian people think highly of “honor, both the individual’s honor and the honor of the primary group the individual belongs to” (Liu Reference Liu2016:215). The final cultural value is harmony, because “group/relationship harmony, conflict avoidance, self-sacrifice, and compromise when personal interests are harmed or personal conflict arises” are highly valued in Asia (Liu Reference Liu2016:215). Among these cultural values, harmony is what he considers the most important and relevant to his Asian Paradigm Theory. In his view, relationships maintained by harmony are “the common denominator that is shared by and reflected by various forms of collectivism, reflecting the essential nature of Asian ways of life, different from the West” (Liu Reference Liu2016:214). Building on the cultural difference between Asia and the West, which is represented by the individualism–collectivism continuum, Liu emphasized the importance of harmony in relationships in Asia.
CHALLENGES IN LIU’S ASIAN CRIMINOLOGY
Although Liu has contributed to the development of criminology in Asia, we see two challenges in his Asian Criminology. The first caveat is a failure to account for the cultural diversity within Asia. Despite the word, Asia, Liu (Liu et al. Reference Liu, Travers, Chang, Liu, Travers and Chang2017b, Reference Liu, Travers, Chang, Liu, Travers and Chang2017c) acknowledged that his scope is limited to Eastern Asia, particularly China because, as Liu mentioned (Liu et al. Reference Liu, Travers, Chang, Liu, Travers and Chang2017b, Reference Liu, Travers, Chang, Liu, Travers and Chang2017c), there is a scarcity of literature in other Asian regions. Existing criminological knowledge (at least in English-written literature) is significantly skewed to the Eastern Asian region (Ganapathy and Balachandran Reference Ganapathy and Balachandran2016; Suzuki et al. Reference Suzuki, Pai and Islam2018).
With this limitation in mind, Liu’s focus on Eastern Asia for developing criminology in Asia might be acceptable. However, given the influence of culture on human behaviors as Liu (Reference Liu2016) argued, neglecting the cultural diversity within Asia may not be appropriate. Existing research indicates possible effects of cultural differences on deviant behaviors. For instance, examining problem drinking among Asian Americans in the US, Cook et al. (Reference Cook, Karriker-Jaffe, Bond and Lui2015) suggested that the drinking culture in their origin countries affected drinking behaviors. When the drinking culture is pervasive in their origin country, these Asian Americans are more likely to show problematic drinking patterns. If Asia is as culturally diverse as Liu acknowledged (Liu et al. Reference Liu2017a), developing criminology in Asia without paying attention to the diversity within Asia may be problematic (Moosavi Reference Moosavi2018a).
The second challenge, and what we see as more problematic in Liu’s approach to developing criminology in Asia, is his use of the individualism–collectivism continuum to contrast Asia and the West. While he was aware of the problem of simply dichotomizing Asia and the West, Liu (Reference Liu2016:210) used the term, Asia, “in the sense where the concept of ‘Asia’ exists and is applied in many similar academic exercises” because, he argued, more cultural differences exist between Asia and the West than within Asia (Liu Reference Liu2017a). Accordingly, Liu (Reference Liu2016) has developed his Asian Paradigm Theory by contrasting collectivism in Asia and individualism in the West.
We argue that his use of the individualism–collectivism continuum may not be appropriate for developing criminology in Asia because this simple dichotomy of culture may not be suitable for exploring the influences of culture in Asia. Since the seminal work by Hofstede (Reference Hofstede2001), the individualism–collectivism continuum has often been employed to examine differences between the West (the US in most cases) and Asia (Japan and China in most cases) (Oyserman, Coon, and Kemmelmeier Reference Oyserman, Coon and Kemmelmeier2002). Yet, this simplistic conceptualization of culture has been critiqued (Fiske Reference Fiske2002; Taras et al. Reference Taras, Sarala, Muchinsky, Kemmelmeier, Singelis, Avsec, Coon, Dinnel, Gardner, Grace, Hardin, Hsu, Johnson, Karakitapoğlu, Kashima, Kolstad, Milfont, Oetzel, Okazaki, Probst, Sato, Shafiro, Schwartz and Sinclair2014; Vignoles et al. Reference Vignoles, Owe, Becker, Smith, Easterbrook, Brown, González, Didier, Carrasco, Cadena, Siugmin, Schwartz, Des Rosiers, Villamar, Gavreliuc, Zinkeng, Kreuzbauer, Baguma, Martin, Tatarko, Herman, de Sauvage, Courtois, Gardarsdóttir, Harb, Gallo, Gil, Clemares, Campara, Nizharadze, Macapagal, Jalal, Bourguignon, Zhang, Lv, Chybicka, Yuki, Zhang, Espinosa, Valk, Abuhamdeh, Amponsah, Özgen, Guner, Yamakoglu, Chobthamkit, Pyszczynski, Kesebir, Trujillo, Balanta, Ayala, Koller, Jaafar, Gausel, Fischer, Milfont, Kusdil, Çağlar, Aldhafri, Ferreira, Habtamu, Mekonnen, Wang, Fülöp, Torres, Camino, Lemos, Fritsche, Möller, Regalia, Manzi, Brambilla and Bond2016). For example, Schwartz (Reference Schwartz1990:151) argued that this binary approach ignores values that “inherently serve both individual and collective interests” and “promotes the mistaken assumption that individualist and collectivist values each from coherent syndromes that are opposed to one another.”
Existing empirical research has demonstrated that the existence of the individualism–collectivism continuum is doubtful. Takano and Sogon (Reference Takano and Sogon2008) examined levels of conformity between people in the US as a proxy of the individualistic culture and Japan as a proxy of the collectivistic culture. Although Japanese people were expected to conform more than American people due to the influence of collectivism, they found no difference in the levels of conformity between them (Takano and Sogon Reference Takano and Sogon2008). Yi (Reference Yi2018) explored how people in South Korea, Japan, Canada and the US evaluate values of individualism and collectivism. Yi (Reference Yi2018) found that the individualism–collectivism continuum was not clearly evident because, depending on demographics, people in South Korea and Japan were more individualistic than those in Canada and the US, and people in Canada and the US showed more collectivistic tendencies than those in South Korea and Japan.
Reviews of research on individualism–collectivism have reached a similar conclusion. Based on their systematic review and meta-analysis, Oyserman et al. (Reference Oyserman, Coon and Kemmelmeier2002) argued that the individualism–collectivism continuum might not be suitable for exploring cultural differences because their result highlighted that people in North America were not necessarily more individualistic and less collectivistic than people in Asia, such as those in Japan and South Korea. Likewise, Takano and Osaka (Reference Takano and Osaka2018) recently conducted a review of empirical research that compared Japan (Asia) and the US (the West) in terms of the individualism–collectivism continuum. Consistent with their previous review (Takano and Osaka Reference Takano and Osaka1999), they found that existing research did not support the view that people in Japan were more collectivistic than those in the US.
These findings may indicate that, as Kashima, Bain, and Perefors (Reference Kashima, Bain and Perefors2019:514) put it, individualism and collectivism may not be “opposite ends of a continuum.”Footnote 1 As Hofstede (Reference Hofstede2001) observed, culture should not be considered as unidimensional, because it may be multidimensional. For instance, the leading cross-cultural scholar on the concept of individualism and collectivism, Triandis (Reference Triandis1995) added an orthogonal dimension to the individualism–collectivism continuum to reflect peoples’ and societies’ perceptions about inequality (Singelis et al. Reference Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk and Gelfand1995). This multidimensional view is congruent with recent research indicating that in accord with globalization, individualism has been rising in Asia; for example, in Japan (Ogihara Reference Ogihara2018). Given these findings, we argue that relying on the individualism–collectivism continuum to develop criminology in Asia may be problematic.
AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO DEVELOPING CRIMINOLOGY IN ASIA
While Liu has contributed to promoting an awareness of the need to develop an indigenized criminology in Asia, the previous section has demonstrated that his approach may be problematic. This challenge then leads to a question: what approach should we take for developing criminology in Asia? In this section, we offer a tentative answer to this question.
To this end, we draw on a debate over the emergence and development of “indigenous psychology,” which aims to examine “knowledge, skills and beliefs people have about themselves and how they function in their cultural context” (Kim and Park Reference Kim and Park2005:85). Criminology and psychology in Asia share the same challenge. Both disciplines are alike not only in that they deal with human behaviors as part of social sciences but also in that they originated in Europe and have been mainly developed in the US (Adair Reference Adair1999; Liu et al. Reference Liu2017a; Moosavi Reference Moosavi2018a). Indigenous psychology has emerged to overcome the Euro-American view on human behaviors that has dominated mainstream psychology, and to understand human behaviors in their own cultural contexts (Allwood and Berry Reference Allwood and Berry2006). Building on the discussion over the emergence and development of indigenous psychology will lend support to developing an indigenized criminology in Asia.
In what follows, we first argue the need to shift from a dichotomic conceptualization of culture, which is represented by the individualism–collectivism continuum. Focusing on cultural zones within Asia, we then offer a possible direction towards culture-inclusive criminology. Finally, we discuss differences between Liu’s Asian Criminology and our cultural-inclusive criminology.
A Need to Move beyond a Dichotomic Conceptualization of Culture
As discussed above, what we see as the most problematic feature in Liu’s Asian Criminology is its way of understanding cultures. Using the dichotomic conceptualization of culture is a practice based on the assumption that, although current mainstream criminology is arguably influenced by Euro-American values, current mainstream criminology is regarded as universal criminology that can be used to explain criminal and deviant behaviors in other cultural contexts (Allwood and Berry Reference Allwood and Berry2006; Gergen Reference Gergen2015). However, current mainstream criminology seeks to explain different cultures “by taking European Americans as a point of reference” (Hwang Reference Hwang2005:81). This dichotomic view of culture may not only blur features of other cultures but also lead to limited understanding of other cultures because characteristics in other cultures can be only understood in contrast to Euro-American values (Hwang Reference Hwang2015a).
In our view, it is necessary to move beyond this dichotomic understanding of culture. Cultures in Asia are more complex and diverse, and this situation requires a more careful investigation. They need to be understood in their own cultural contexts. If we need to move beyond this dichotomic understanding of culture, the next task is to identify what cultures exist in Asia. This is particularly important because, as Allwood (Reference Allwood2011:5) noted when he critiqued the ambiguity of the concept of culture in indigenous psychology, we “see specific cultures as mapped to specific societies or groups of people and as being more or less common to the members of the society in question even though the societies discussed usually include many millions of people.” Research conducted by Inglehart and Baker (Reference Inglehart and Baker2000) sheds light on this matter. Drawing on the World Value Survey, their findings highlighted that even after a lapse of significant time, distinctive cultural zones, such as Protestant, Orthodox, Islam and Confucianism, are still evident across the world. In other words, the influences of these cultural zones remain persistent despite globalization and modernization over the decades (Inglehart and Baker Reference Inglehart and Baker2000). According to Schwartz (Reference Schwartz, Vinken, Soeters and Ester2004), this finding is supported by other research, such as Hofstede’s research, because they also identified similar cultural zones. In addition, their influences are prevalent not only at a societal level but also at an individual level. Taking Confucianism for an example, existing research shows its effect on everyday life in Asia, such as classroom discipline in Hong Kong (Hue Reference Hue2007), a decision-making process in Taiwan (Liu, Meng, and Wang Reference Liu, Meng and Wang2014), and a way of handling dispute/s in China (Xu and Cheung Reference Xu and Cheung2016).
Inglehart and Baker (Reference Inglehart and Baker2000:22) used the term, cultural zone, to indicate geographical divides “based on cultural differences that have persisted for centuries.” They argued that “[t]hese [cultural] zones were shaped by religious traditions that are still powerful today, despite the forces of modernization.” As Islam et al. (Reference Islam, Suzuki, Mazumder and Ibrahim2018:281) put it, the relationship between culture and religion is reciprocal “because of the overlapping nature of religious beliefs and cultural values (Ghafournia Reference Ghafournia2017).” We agree with these views, thereby using the term, culture, in this broad sense to incorporate religion due to its interconnectedness with and reciprocal influence on culture.Footnote 2
To identify cultural zones in Asia, we can borrow an idea of analytical dualism proposed by Archer (Reference Archer1995). According to this framework, cultural zones are “constituted by the corpus of existing intelligibilia – by all things capable of being grasped, deciphered, understood or known by someone” (Archer Reference Archer1988:104), which is consistent with the findings of Inglehart and Baker (Reference Inglehart and Baker2000). Examples of the corpus are the Four Books and Five Classics of Confucianism, the Bible of Protestant and Orthodox Christianity and the Quran of Islam. Asia may consist of a variety of cultural zones, such as Confucianism, Islam and Hinduism. These cultural zones may shape ways of thinking and behaviors among Asian people in different ways.
Towards Culture-Inclusive Criminology in Asia
We need to take into account this cultural diversity in order to develop criminology in Asia. To do so, we propose what we call culture-inclusive criminology in Asia.Footnote 3 Drawing from indigenous psychology (c.f. Kim and Berry Reference Kim, Berry, Kim and Berry1993:2), the definition of culture-inclusive criminology is “a scientific study of crime in which knowledge and discourses are derived from unique cultural contexts.” Rather than using the term, Asia, as in Liu’s Asian Criminology, we adopt the term, culture-inclusive, to denote an attempt to accommodate cultural differences within Asia (c.f. Hwang Reference Hwang2015b). It builds on the premise that Asia consists of a variety of cultural zones. Instead of aiming to develop “a unified paradigm for criminology in Asia” (Liu Reference Liu2009:7) as a “unified region” (Liu Reference Liu, Liu, Travers and Chang2017b:18) like Liu’s Asian Criminology, we propose that an indigenized criminology should be developed in each cultural zone within Asia. In this sense, our culture-inclusive criminology is neither a theory nor a paradigm. Rather, it should be considered more of a framework for developing criminology in Asia. We suggest directing attention towards an influential cultural value in each cultural zone of Asia. We call for a shift from the Euro-American view on culture and crime towards an understanding of crime in its own cultural context. The goal is to develop indigenized criminologies in each cultural zone of Asia under an umbrella of culture-inclusive criminology.
As a first step to developing culture-inclusive criminology, we propose a need to establish its own theory of criminal and deviant behavior. We see this attempt as important not only because it is the fundamental goal in criminology as a discipline (McLaughlin and Newburn Reference McLaughlin and Newburn2010), but also because existing criminological theories are not necessarily supported in the Asian context. A series of recent research studies conducted by Steffensmeier and colleagues (Steffensmeier, Lu, and Kumar Reference Steffensmeier, Lu and Kumar2019; Steffensmeier, Lu and Na Reference Steffensmeier, Lu and Na2020; Steffensmeier, Zhong, and Lu Reference Steffensmeier, Zhong and Lu2017) examined whether Hirschi and Gottfredson’s (Reference Hirschi and Gottfredson1983) thesis on the age–crime curve, which is considered a major theory of developmental and life-course criminology and desistance (see Weaver Reference Weaver2019), applies to Asian countries, including Taiwan (Steffensmeier et al. Reference Steffensmeier, Zhong and Lu2017), India (Steffensmeier et al. Reference Steffensmeier, Lu and Kumar2019), and South Korea (Steffensmeier et al. Reference Steffensmeier, Lu and Na2020). They have found that Hirschi and Gottfredson’s (Reference Hirschi and Gottfredson1983) thesis does not directly apply to these Asian countries because the age–crime patterns in these countries, particularly the peak age of crime, are distinct from those in the US, where the thesis was developed (Steffensmeier et al. Reference Steffensmeier, Zhong and Lu2017, Reference Steffensmeier, Lu and Kumar2019, Reference Steffensmeier, Lu and Na2020). Suzuki et al. (Reference Suzuki, Pai and Islam2018) systematically reviewed existing studies that examined the extent to which five main criminological theories, including strain, social learning, control, routine activity, and developmental and life-course, are supported in the Asian context. Among 28 journal articles that employed a rigorous methodology, they found that the theories were only partially supported in about a half of the studies because they found only a partial relationship between theories and criminal behavior (Suzuki et al. Reference Suzuki, Pai and Islam2018).
To understand why this divergence exists, we may need to consider a concept of scope conditions. According to Kim, Ra, and McLean (Reference Kim, Ra and McLean2019:46), “[s]cope conditions are conditions set forth by a theorist that define the circumstances under which a theory should apply (Cohen Reference Cohen1980, Reference Cohen1989; Foschi Reference Foschi1997),” and they “protect a theory from being falsified by a test of its propositions in conditions where the theory should not reasonably be expected to apply.” Drawing on this concept, Kim et al. (Reference Kim, Ra and McLean2019) suggested that the reason why Tyler’s (Reference Tyler1990) procedural justice is not fully supported in Asian countries, such as South Korea (Kim et al. Reference Kim, Ra and McLean2019), Japan (Tsushima and Hamai Reference Tsushima and Hamai2015) and China (Sun et al. Reference Sun, Wu, Hu and Farmer2017), may be because it is built on a premise of the existence of Western democracies. In other words, because existing criminological theories have been established in a particular cultural zone, they might not apply to other cultural zones.
Offering a comprehensive set of theories in each cultural zone in Asia is beyond the scope of this paper because Asia consists of various cultural zones, as discussed above. Instead, we briefly provide a possible approach to developing culture-inclusive criminological theory because doing so can inform a future direction for culture-inclusive criminology in Asia. To do so, we particularly focus on the Confucian cultural zone for two reasons. The first reason is the authors’ backgrounds in Eastern Asia, where Confucianism is influential (Inglehart and Baker Reference Inglehart and Baker2000). The second reason is that doing so would help to clarify similarities and differences between Liu’s Asian Criminology and our culture-inclusive criminology in the Confucian cultural zone because his main focus is also on Eastern Asia.
To offer an exemplary way to develop culture-inclusive criminological theory in the Confucian cultural zone, it is first necessary to understand Confucianism. What defines Confucianism has already been discussed elsewhere (e.g. Braithwaite and Zhang Reference Braithwaite and Zhang2017; Hwang Reference Hwang2001). The essence of Confucianism is “relational, reciprocal, and hierarchical” (Liu Reference Liu2015:86). These features may govern people’s thinking and behaviors in this cultural zone. Confucianism is considered relational because people tend to hold their identity of self as a part of the group they belong to rather than independent from it (Ho Reference Ho1995). In Confucianism, while the interpersonal relationship matters, the relationship is also hierarchical because people view “the role relationship between oneself and others along two social dimensions: intimacy/distance and superiority/inferiority” (Hwang Reference Hwang2000:168).
Based on this understanding of Confucianism, we suggest following Hwang’s (Reference Hwang2015b) approach to constructing a culture-inclusive criminological theory based on Confucianism. He offered three steps. First, he suggested identifying universal structures of the research subject because they determine how humans act, think, perceive, and feel, leading to the development and diversification of cultural phenomena (Lévi-Strauss Reference Lévi-Strauss and Jacobson1963). In his case, the research subject is “universal mind for interpersonal interactions” (Hwang Reference Hwang2015b:49), and in our case, it is criminal behaviors. Second, building on it, he proposed developing a theoretical model to explain a relationship between structures within the research subject because we need to develop a fundamental understanding of similarities and differences in the research subject between different cultural zones. Finally, he recommended using the model to analyze the cultural corpus, the Analects in the Confucian cultural zone, to construct culture-inclusive theory because it represents Confucianism. We argue that these steps are important for developing culture-inclusive criminology in each cultural zone of Asia because the cultural corpuses, which may function as a basis for developing an indigenized criminology in each cultural zone, need to be translated to align with our current understanding on crime (Kim and Park Reference Kim, Park, Kim, Yang and Hwang2006; Kim, Park, and Park Reference Kim, Park and Park1999).
Drawing on this approach, we should attempt to develop a culture-inclusive criminological theory to explain criminal behaviors in their cultural zones. A few researchers have sought to do so. For instance, some scholars suggested that Confucianism can serve as a social control of crime in its cultural zone because it functions as a moral compass of what is right and wrong (Ngai and Cheung Reference Ngai and Cheung2005; Yun and Lee Reference Yun and Lee2017). Focusing on child maltreatment, others proposed that where the relationship is hierarchical in the family, children are considered as owned by their parents in the Confucian cultural zone, thereby rendering parents likely to abuse their children when the children do not obey orders or fulfil duties (Emery, Nguyen, and Kim Reference Emery, Nguyen and Kim2014; Zhai and Gao Reference Zhai and Gao2009). However, these attempts to develop criminology based on Confucianism remain sporadic. We need a more systematic approach, such as the one described above, to develop culture-inclusive criminological theory in the Confucian cultural zone of Asia.
Differences between Liu’s Asian Criminology and Culture-Inclusive Criminology
Although we agree with Liu that the need exists to develop an indigenized criminology in Asia, we have proposed an alternative approach, which we call culture-inclusive criminology. Three key distinctions exist between Liu’s Asian Criminology and our culture-inclusive criminology in Asia in terms of its approaches to developing criminology in Asia. First, the method by which to investigate the cultural effect is different. According to Karstedt (Reference Karstedt2001; also see Enriquez Reference Enriquez1979), two strategies exist for exploring culture: the dimensional-extensive and the singular-trait-intensive strategies. Liu’s approach is categorized as the former because, in his approach, “cultures can be compared with regard to specific dimensions that are common to all” (i.e. individualism–collectivism) (Karstedt Reference Karstedt2001:289). On the other hand, our approach aligns with the latter, in which “differences between cultures are shaped by a specific characteristic or singular cultural trait, that pervades the total cultural pattern; it is present in one type of culture, but absent in others” (Karstedt Reference Karstedt2001:290), because our approach focuses on culture unique to a specific region (e.g. Confucianism).
Second, the approach to conceptualizing culture is different: top-down versus bottom-up. In Liu’s Asian Criminology, collectivism as the Asian culture is compared with individualism as the Western (American) culture (Liu Reference Liu2016). His approach can be considered top-down in the sense that, as discussed above, it is embedded within the paradigm of mainstream criminology. It seeks to develop criminology in Asia from the Euro-American view by using it as “a point of reference” (Hwang Reference Hwang2005:81). In contrast, our cultural-inclusive criminology advocates the understanding of the culture in its own cultural context. It employs a bottom-up approach (Kim and Park Reference Kim and Park2005) to understanding crime in each cultural zone of Asia.
Finally, the scope of applicability is different. As mentioned above, Liu implied that the scope of his Asian Criminology is limited to East Asia due to limited literature (Liu et al. Reference Liu, Travers, Chang, Liu, Travers and Chang2017b, Reference Liu, Travers, Chang, Liu, Travers and Chang2017c). On the other hand, the scope of our culture-inclusive criminology is broader because our culture-inclusive criminology is not a paradigm, but a framework for developing indigenized criminologies in each cultural zone of Asia. Asia can be divided into several cultural zones (Inglehart and Baker Reference Inglehart and Baker2000). Different indigenized criminologies should be developed to fit each cultural zone of Asia (Allwood Reference Allwood2002; Ho Reference Ho1995). This is the reason why, unlike Liu, we have carefully avoided using the term, Asia, to denote our approach. As Hebenton and Jou (Reference Hebenton and Jou2010:8) observed, although “it has become increasingly common to speak of criminology in national or regional terms,” the references signify “nothing other than the criminological studies undertaken in the geographical area in question,” while others indicate “claims to a certain ‘national’ distinctiveness and thus requiring a distinctive criminological doctrine or theory.” Because we are cognizant of the cultural diversity within Asia, we employ the term, culture-inclusive, to embrace the existence of a variety of cultures within Asia.
A WAY FORWARD
While Liu’s Asian Criminology has significantly contributed to the development of criminology in Asia, his approach has the problems of failing to account for the diversity within Asia and relying on the individualism–collectivism continuum. To overcome these challenges and develop criminology in Asia, we have proposed culture-inclusive criminology in Asia that advocates an understanding of crime in its own cultural context. Reflecting the cultural diversity within Asia, different indigenized criminologies should be developed in each cultural zone of Asia under the umbrella of culture-inclusive criminology. We believe that this approach is necessary for accommodating the cultural diversity within Asia.
Although we have criticized Liu’s approach to developing criminology in Asia, this is not to say our approach should be considered superior to his approach. Different ways of defining and examining culture exist, and it is just that our approach is different from Liu’s. In our view, both approaches are necessary at this point. Given the immature status of criminology in Asia, both of them will likely yield different, critical knowledge for developing criminology in Asia (Li Reference Li2012; Sundararajan Reference Sundararajan2015).
While our approach is built on the debate over indigenous psychology, indigenous psychology is not without critiques. One is a lack of empirical evidence to support its movement (Allwood Reference Allwood2011; Jahoda Reference Jahoda2016). The same critique would apply to our culture-inclusive criminology in Asia. As we have proposed in this paper, our next step should be to develop culture-inclusive criminological theories in Asia (Braithwaite Reference Braithwaite2015; Hwang Reference Hwang2010; Moosavi Reference Moosavi2018a) and empirically examine them. Otherwise, as Triandis (Reference Triandis2000) noted regarding indigenous psychology, our culture-inclusive criminology would also face a challenge in gaining attention from mainstream criminologists.
Developing culture-inclusive criminology would be important not only to criminology in Asia but also to mainstream criminology. Consistent with indigenous psychologists (Allwood and Berry Reference Allwood and Berry2006), we consider that mainstream criminology is also a part of culture-inclusive criminology developed in a certain cultural zone. To establish universal criminology, it is necessary to accumulate knowledge from different cultural contexts (Li Reference Li2012). We invite others, particularly those in other cultural zones of Asia, such as Islam and Hinduism, to develop their indigenized criminologies as a part of culture-inclusive criminology. In this way, we will be able to develop a more comprehensive understanding of criminal and deviant behaviors in Asia.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Professor Susanne Karstedt, Dr. Mitsuaki Ueda, Dr. Lennon Chang, Navin Kumar and Professor Kwang-Kuo Hwang for their invaluable comments on the early draft.
Masahiro Suzuki is a lecturer in criminology at the School of Business and Law, Central Queensland University, Australia. He is interested in restorative justice, desistance, youth offending, comparative criminology, criminological theory, juvenile justice and elder crime. His papers have received High Commendation for the 2018 Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology’s PhD Paper Prize and a Graduate Student Article Award from the Asian Criminological Society in 2019.
Chen-Fu Pai is a PhD candidate at the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University, Australia. His thesis examines how recovery programs in faith-based and medical-based therapeutic communities in Taiwan help the residents desist from drug addiction. He particularly focuses on identity change and restoration of relationships between the residents and their family members. His research interests include criminological theory and scientific philosophy. His paper has received a Graduate Student Article Award from the Asian Criminological Society in 2019.
