The objective of this book has been to contribute a reflexive analysis of modern Western criminology, focusing on knowledge production rather than criminological and penal policy. More precisely, I have aimed to reconstruct the ideology – as ‘science’ of otherness – as a principal theme in the history of knowledge production in Western criminological thought. Throughout the book, I have discussed different versions of otherness that have served as ideological points of departure for various schools of thought and paradigms in the field, and explored the co-constitutive evolution of knowledge production in modern criminology and ideological variants of otherness in relation to the socio-historical context. As such, while this book did not intend – and indeed, could not have tried – to capture the full rich, layered body of criminological knowledge, I believe it does have something to say about the essence of the field.

This book has reread the history of Western criminology, not as mere knowledge that aims to explain criminal behaviour based on quantifiable methods, or even to perfect criminal jurisprudence and practices, but also as an apparatus to inscribe, reproduce, and legitimize a certain social structure. Arguably, in this respect criminology is no different from any other discipline in the social sciences. Yet without going into comparisons, we should acknowledge the often purposeful direction of criminological knowledge as applied knowledge (‘science for life’s sake’, as Ferri wrote (2004 [1901]: 35)). As such, its ideological foundations play a significant function as an instrument of power.

Lest we despair, I end this chapter by pointing to a growing body of work that offers a promising alternative direction for knowledge production in criminology. First, though, let us briefly look back, and summarize how we have got to where we are.

A science of otherness: summary and recapitulation

In developing a theory of knowledge based on the concept of otherness, this book has extended David Matza and David Garland’s depiction of positivist criminology as constructed from ideas of difference and pathology (Matza, 1964) and as a ‘criminology of the other’ (Garland, 1996, 1999, 2001). The ideology of otherness asserts a discourse of responsibilization in which the fault for social unrest lies with some problematic ‘other’ rather than with the social structure and its hierarchies.