UPI Study › Courses › Criminology › Free lessons › Lesson 8.2 Free with a free account
Realistic Conflict Theory, Discrimination, and Critical Criminology
Criminology · Chapter 8: Conflict Theories and Restorative JusticeSection 8.2 · lesson 32 of 91video coming soon
← Social Conflict Theory: Definitions, Key Contributors, and Neutralization TheoryNext lesson: Restorative Justice: Principles, Community Practices, and Case Pathways →
In this lesson
Competition, hostility, and how power shapes what counts as crime.
- Explain realistic conflict theory and the conditions it identifies.
- Apply the theory to discrimination and scapegoating.
- Describe the principal branches of critical criminology.
- Distinguish critical criminology from its common misrepresentations.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,568 words). Read along, or search it.
Opening Scenario
Same People, Different Situation
Two groups are given a limited prize to compete for. Within a short time, they start to dislike each other. Then they're given a task neither can finish alone, and the hostility fades. Nothing about the people changed. What changed was the structure of the situation.
Lesson Roadmap
Two Paths Through the Conflict Tradition
This lesson continues the conflict tradition along two paths. The first is realistic conflict theory, an account of how hostility between groups arises and how it can be reduced. You will learn the conditions that make competition turn hostile, and the conditions that defuse it. You will then apply the theory to discrimination and scapegoating, especially during economic pressure. The second path is critical criminology, a family of approaches focused on power. You will survey its principal branches, and the question each one asks. Just as important, you will learn to recognize three common misrepresentations of the tradition. By the end, you should be able to state what critical criminology claims, and what it does not.
Core Claim
Competition Over Scarce Resources Breeds Hostility
Realistic conflict theory makes a specific claim about where hostility between groups comes from. It arises primarily from real or perceived competition over scarce resources. Those resources might be jobs, housing, or status. The theory sets aside difference itself, such as background or identity, considered in isolation. On this view, difference alone is not what drives groups apart; competition is. Its classic experimental basis involved groups placed in competition for a limited prize, and the groups developed hostility toward one another relatively quickly. Then something important happened. The hostility could be reduced by structuring cooperative tasks, which required the groups to work together toward a shared outcome. That second finding is what makes the theory useful for policy. If structure created the hostility, a different structure can reduce it.
Conditions
What Inflames and What Defuses Competition
The theory specifies the conditions under which competition is especially likely to produce hostility. The first is when resources are framed as fixed and zero-sum. In that frame, one group's gain is understood as the other group's loss. The second is when contact between groups happens without any joint, equal-status activity. Contact alone does nothing to offset the competitive frame, and can even sharpen it. The opposite conditions reduce hostility. One is a superordinate goal, an objective that neither group can achieve alone. Reaching it requires genuine cooperation between them. The other is a resource that can plausibly be expanded, rather than merely divided. Notice that both reducing conditions change the structure of the situation, not the attitudes of the people in it.
Application
Scapegoating Under Economic Pressure
As a general social process, realistic conflict theory has been applied to discrimination and scapegoating. These tend to intensify during periods of economic pressure. That is when competition for employment, housing, or public resources is perceived to increase. The theory has also been applied to hostility directed at newly arrived populations. Newcomers are sometimes seen as new competitors for a fixed set of resources. Here is the crucial detail. That perception drives hostility regardless of whether it matches actual conditions. So the theory explains hostility even where the competition is largely imagined. The mechanism connects to hate crime, whose legal definition is examined in Subchapter ten point three. It also connects to political scapegoating, examined in Chapter sixteen.
Definition
Critical Criminology Studies Power
Critical criminology is defined not by a single theory, but by its object of study. That object is how power shapes the work of criminal justice and of criminology itself. First, power shapes what conduct is criminalized in the first place. Second, it shapes who is policed and prosecuted. Third, it shapes which harms are studied at all. Some harms receive heavy attention, while others are left largely unexamined by the discipline. Because the object is shared but the methods differ, critical criminology is best understood as a family. Several related approaches belong to it, each with its own emphasis. Keeping that family structure in mind protects you from treating the whole tradition as one position.
Branches
Instrumental, Structural, and Other Approaches
The branches differ mainly in what they examine within that shared object. Instrumental approaches examine how specific, identifiable actors use law deliberately to serve their interests. Structural approaches examine how law serves those interests as a systemic outcome. No deliberate action by an identifiable actor is required. Left realism insists that crime is a genuine problem, one that harms disadvantaged communities most severely. It positions itself against critical approaches seen as minimizing street crime's impact on the less powerful. Feminist criminology examines the gendering of offending patterns. It also examines the justice system's response to victims and defendants, by gender. Peacemaking criminology emphasizes reconciliation and the reduction of suffering, over punitive response.
More Branches
Cultural, Green, and State-Corporate Criminology
Cultural criminology treats crime and its control as meaning-laden cultural practices, rather than purely as rule violation. Two further branches extend the object of study beyond conventional offense categories. Green criminology studies environmental harm. Much of that harm falls outside traditional criminal law entirely. That is precisely the kind of harm a conventional criminology would never examine. Chapter fourteen gives green criminology fuller treatment. State-corporate criminology studies harm produced through the combined action of government and corporate power. Neither actor alone may produce the harm, which is why the combination is its object. Chapter sixteen gives it fuller treatment. Both branches follow the critical tradition's logic, asking which harms the discipline has left unstudied.
Comparison
Central Questions and Common Criticisms
Now each branch, set beside its central question and its most common criticism. Instrumental and structural approaches ask how power shapes law and enforcement. Their critics note how hard it is to tell deliberate action from structural outcome. Left realism asks how crime harms the disadvantaged, studying street crime in lower-income communities. Other critical scholars charge it with underplaying structural causes, in favor of practical response. Feminist criminology asks how gender shapes offending and the system's response. Its internal debate concerns how much weight structural, versus individual, explanation deserves. Peacemaking criminology asks how suffering from both crime and punishment can be reduced. Its object is the punitive response itself, and its aims are hard to turn into testable, scalable policy. Cultural criminology asks what crime and its control mean to those involved. Its criticism is limited generalizability beyond the specific cases it studies.
Common Mistakes
Three Misrepresentations of the Tradition
Critical criminology is frequently misrepresented in three ways. First, it is not the claim that offending does not matter, or causes no real harm. Left realism, in particular, insists on exactly the opposite. Second, it is not the claim that offenders bear no personal responsibility for their conduct. Studying how power shapes law is fully compatible with holding individuals accountable within that law. Third, it is not a single political program that all its adherents share. The internal disagreements between left realism and the other branches demonstrate that. The tradition contains genuine, unresolved debate, rather than one settled position. When you hear a sweeping claim about what critical criminologists believe, test it against these three corrections.
Quick Check
Do All Critical Criminologists Agree?
Quick check. Someone says: critical criminologists all agree that law is a deliberate tool of the powerful. Is that accurate for the whole tradition? Pause, and decide.
Answer
Only the Instrumental Branch Fits
No. That claim describes only the instrumental branch. Structural approaches need no deliberate actor, so the tradition holds no single position.
Critique
Weaknesses and Lasting Contributions
Critical criminology faces the same testability problem noted for conflict theory in Subchapter eight point one. It also faces a persistent gap between diagnosis and policy. Describing a problem in terms of power is one thing; proposing a policy that a legislature or agency could adopt is another. And it shares the difficulty with consensus offenses, condemned across virtually every social position. For those, a pure power-based account adds comparatively little. Despite these critiques, the tradition redirected the discipline toward objects it had neglected. These include the process by which law itself is made. They include the decision points in the justice system where discretion operates. And they include harms by organizations and states, examined under the same lens applied to individual offenders. These contributions are now so embedded that they are often studied without the critical label at all, as Subchapter eight point four develops.
Quick Check
The Hospital Infection Drive
Consider a hospital. Day and night nurses blame each other after budget cuts. The director launches an infection-reduction drive that depends on both shifts working as one team. Quick check: which concept does the drive apply? Pause, and decide.
Answer
A Superordinate Goal at Work
A superordinate goal: a shared mission. It changes the structure of the situation rather than anyone's attitudes.
Case Application
Unemployment and a Policy Forum
Consider a composite policy forum in a district experiencing rising unemployment. The forum is examining a recent increase in reported hostility between two groups. One group is long-established residents, and the other is a recently arrived population, competing for the same limited pool of entry-level jobs. Realistic conflict theory gives the forum its first task: identify the resource competition mechanism driving the pattern. The jobs are scarce, fixed in number, and framed as zero-sum. The second task is evaluating a proposed remedy, a jobs-training program run as a joint, cross-group project. Could it function as a superordinate goal, one neither group could reach alone? The forum must ask whether it would actually reduce hostility. The alternative is that it merely redistributes the same competition among the same people.
Key Takeaways
Competition, Shared Goals, and Power
To recap. Hostility grows from competition, and shared goals reduce it. Critical criminology is a family defined by its object, power, not one position, and three common claims about it are misreadings. Subchapter eight point three turns from theory to practice, examining restorative justice. That approach grew partly out of this tradition's critique of purely retributive punishment.
About Criminology at UPI Study
Criminology (Criminology 150) is a self-paced online course of 91 video lessons in 21 chapters, from classical criminology and crime data to theories of crime, victims, policing, courts and corrections. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Criminology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Criminology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Realistic Conflict Theory, Discrimination, and Critical Criminology
What is realistic conflict theory and what conditions does it say make competition turn hostile?
How does realistic conflict theory explain discrimination and scapegoating during economic hard times?
How can hostility between competing groups be reduced according to realistic conflict theory?
What are the main branches of critical criminology, and what does it not claim?
About the Criminology course
How many college credits is Criminology?
How much does Criminology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Criminology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Criminology.
91 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →