Because crime is a social construction – society decides what constitutes legal/illegal behavior - it would be incorrect to suggest that genetics and biology are responsible for deviance and criminality; also, genetic influences affect character traits and dispositions, rather than behaviors directly e.g. a character trait, such as being quick to anger, doesn’t necessarily result in the behavior of violent acts, though it may pre-dispose certain people to act/react in this way, etc. It is generally agreed upon that criminality and deviance derives from a combination of biology, and social experiences – with such experiences also affecting biology. The debate and discussion between the two camps of “nature” and “nurture” with regards to criminality, is largely about which one plays the greater influence, rather than on whether one is solely responsible, to the exclusion of the other. It is understood that social experiences can affect both patterns of thinking, and the chemistry/“wiring” of the brain, and so it may be useful to think of such experiences in a holistic way, rather than try to separate the two out. This is the starting point of Lonnie Athens’ theory of “Violentization”; that people go through a series of experiences and processes that eventually lead to them thinking of and using violence in a “new” way – that they become changed. Athens’ interest was not in individuals who behaved/acted violently from time to time, but with those dangerous criminals who use violence without a second thought.

I first came across Athens’ work as an Undergraduate around 30 years ago, at a time when I was reading Jimmy Boyle’s “A Sense of Freedom”, for a sociology class I was taking. For those who are not aware, Jimmy Boyle was a Glaswegian Gangster/Hardman/Money-Lender, who was so violent that the Scottish Prison Service was unable to deal with him safely, resorting to using solitary confinement for lengths of time that went far beyond those recommended by Home Office guidelines, etc. Eventually, he was transferred to the Barlinnie Prison Special Unit, which emphasized art and creative writing, etc., as a means of rehabilitation, and this was where Boyle discovered he had a talent for sculpting and art. In a stream of consciousness over the course of a few weeks, he wrote his autobiography on how he’d developed into a violent criminal. In the dedication of the book, Boyle asks the question, that Lonnie Athens attempts to answer: “I entered this world with the innocence of every child; had dreams of being a fireman, train driver, superman, along with the fantasies that are part of childhood. What went wrong?” He adds, “Personal experience has led me to believe that the pattern of my own life in crime is analogous to the vast majority involved in it.” Although, not formulating a theory like Athens, Boyle saw his path to crime and violence, as being a set of social experiences that shaped, changed, and developed who he was, taking himself from a starting point of innocence to one where he was prepared to engage in extreme acts of violence, without any thought or inhibition – Athens would describe this process as consisting of four distinct stages, that combined described the act of “Violentization”. In this article, I will look at the first of these steps – Brutalization – and in the next article the remaining three.

One of the unique characteristics of Athens’ work – which involved the interviewing of violent prisoners – was that he allowed the individual participants to interpret their own actions, experiences and social interactions, rather than try and interpret them himself and/or try to categorize and fit them into an existing framework of understanding. It was what was significant to the individual that mattered, rather than what was significant to the researcher/interviewer. In doing this, he noted that all his interviewees were first exposed to violence through a process called brutalization – where they were both subjected to violent acts, either to coerce them into behaving in a particular way, or as an act of retaliation; as a punishment for something they said or did, etc. Brutalization consisted of three components: subjugation, personal horrification and violent coaching. Looking at Jimmy Boyle’s early life, these three factors are clear and present. Subjugation involves the use of violence to force submission. Boyle experienced this in his home, school, and social life. Growing up in 1950’s Glasgow, he was in an era when corporal punishment both at home and school was used in a free and easy way – physical punishment (a form of violence) was seen as the best means of changing behavior. Growing up in the gang culture of the streets he was also exposed to it, as those who led the gangs, and/or were senior members, used violence as a means of establishing and maintaining their own position(s), whilst keeping other members in their place. In such an environment he also witnessed extreme acts of violence (“personal horrification”), against others – being educated to see violence as normal, necessary, and natural. This was also coupled with “Violent Coaching”, where he was encouraged by those who were older than him to use violence; this often took the form of being forced by older gang members to take part in arranged fights with younger members (something I remember from my school days).

“Self-Psychology” as pioneered by Heinz Kohut, sees aggression and violence as always being responsive and reactive, as opposed to something which is internal, innate and biologically hard-wired in us. Whether this is truly the case or not, it demonstrates the importance of the stimuli, that provokes and/or encourages us to become violent actors – starting with a period of “Brutalization”. Not everybody who undergoes such experiences turns into a dangerous, violent criminal, and there are other steps that an individual must go through in order to become such a person. Also, as Jimmy Boyle demonstrated there is the opportunity to reform, and have such processes undone, so it would be incorrect to think that after the stages of violentization have been completed, that both internal and social experiences cease to have any affect, both in undoing the process or furthering and cementing it. In next week’s article I will look at the three remaining components and phases of Athens’ theory.