An abridged version of this paper was published in the Newsletter of the European Group for the Study of Deviance and Social Control. It is intended as a discussion document for internal discussions within the group on its values.

The European Group was established in 1973 and published its Manifesto in 1974. Over 50 years ago the manifesto set out not only the group’s functions but an implicit set of values to underpin the group’s activities. The purpose of this short article is to summarise the key points of the 1974 manifesto, the undated values listed on our website and David Scott’s statement to the 2011 and 2012 conferences and to invite comments and observations about their relevance today in 2025. David has made some comments on an earlier draft which have been incorporated. This it is hoped will provide some background to the planned open meeting on the 12^th May to discuss the group’s values.

The European Group

In the 1974 Manifesto the European Group described itself as: 

a left, primarily academic organization concerned with developing a progressive alternative to established criminology in Europe (that wished) to contribute to the development of a critical academic and political framework, to criticise social theory and political practice.

As such the group firstly, clearly positioned itself as oppositional (to established criminology in Europe). This was a position that David Scott emphasised in his address when he stated that the group addresses ‘topics and debates that are marginalised or ignored by the mainstream, administrative or official criminology forums.’ Are we happy with this positioning? In particular does centring ourself around criminology, even in an oppositional position, privilege the discourse and discipline of criminology? Could we instead define ourselves as being for something? 

Our revised aims on the website are much broader. They are:

• to foster mutual support and cooperation
• to nurture comradeship, collegiality and solidarity
• to emphasise political commitment and direct engagement
• to promote craftsmanship, intellectual autonomy and integrity
• and, to facilitate truly emancipatory knowledge.

These are aspirational and there is little there that can be objected to. However, by themselves they provide little direction of how they play out in practice. They are based on the address David Scott, the then co-ordinator, made in his 2011/2012 address. For David:

The European group is rooted in a philosophy of anti-elitism and non-hierarchy, at our conference it makes no difference if a delegate is either a first year PhD student or a highly distinguished professor as we … meet here as equals. 

David’s address expands on this in more detail and is definitely worth a careful listen, particular in terms of the flesh he puts on the bones of the aims set out on the website. 

The European Group and Social Movements/Liberation Struggles

Although primarily academic the European Group in 1974 perceived itself as a group that sought to respond to the challenge posed to the dominant, positivist analysis of crime, deviance and social control by the emergence of ‘Women Liberation, Gay Liberation, Prisoners Organisations, Tenants Associations and many others’. This showed a clear intention to align the group with the social movements and liberation struggles of the 1970s. This vision was replicated by David who spoke of the European Group being ‘a network that can support and provide solidarity with existing and emerging social movements and activists across the globe’. David’s reference to a global perspective highlights an important development within the group epitomised by the establishment of the Fear and looting in the periphery working group committed to bring ‘Southern’ perspectives into the EG’s work. This has contributed to an increased commitment to liberation and anti-colonial struggles and in particular Palestine and the groups has committed itself, on a number of occasions, to support BDS (Boycott, Divest & Sanctions) against Israel. The value of this commitment by the group was questioned at the last conference when, directly following the AGM where it was again agreed, an invited keynote speaker spoke against BDS. This raises the question of how the group’s ethos and policies are adhered to in practice. In updating our manifesto or values do we wish to reiterate this commitment to social movements and liberation struggles? What movements and struggles do wish to commit to? And more importantly, in what concrete ways do we commit the group to act?

The European Group’s ideology

The 1974 manifesto included two clear ideological commitments, firstly a methodological one and secondly a political one. Methodologically the group was committed to scholarship from below, it states a commitment ‘to a theoretical approach that grants “deviant” actors a conscious past, a present perceived problem and a future praxis.’ In research terms this meant centring the voices and experiences of those target by the agencies of social control. David reaffirmed this when he highlighted how the EG remained committed to ‘provide a platform for the voices of those who are largely ignored and marginalised’. This remains central to the work of many within the group and is, I would hope, something we would want to recommit to. In particular do0 we want to formalise a commitment to providing accesses to our conferences to local communities and organising plenary sessions of local activists. 

Politically the 1974 Manifesto made a ‘commitment to a theoretical and practical programme that generally is concerned to relate systems of domination and control to the structures of production and the division of labour.’ This implicitly links the EG to a Marxist perspective, something which is subsequently stated more explicitly: ‘the framework to which the Group, as an organisation, is committed is Marxist.’ However, this was immediately qualified as the manifesto went on to recognise the potentially ‘problematic nature of that framework’, meant the group ‘avoids a dogmatic stance within that debate.’ Although Marxism remains clearly central to the thinking of many within the group, in recent years a more diverse range of ideological influences have been evident. David Scott in his address identified anarchism, Marxism, feminism, anti-racism and penal abolitionism. If we were redrafting the manifesto today, would we want to include all these philosophies? Are there other we would want to include? Indeed, David in his address offered, an alternative conception of the political focus of the group arguing that ‘the European Group is shaped by an unequivocal commitment to social justice ‘ and locates itself within ‘the critical tradition that aims to challenge privilege, power and social inequalities’. Whilst the traditional Marxist focus on class remains important, David highlighted how the group now addressed ‘a myriad of wider concerns regarding nationalism, homophobia, racism, ableism, ageism, heteronormativity and sexual divisions’. Does this provide a better potential description of the group’s political ideology?

International Perspective

From its foundation the European Group saw itself as a multi-national organisation. Initially this was inspired by a wish to bring together European scholars to, in part, provide a counterweight to United States dominance of the discipline of criminology. This was reflected in the 1974 manifesto which stated that among the EG’s aims was that it was seeking ‘⁠to facilitate communication between social scientists across national boundaries.’ In his address David highlighted how the EG was attracting participation from ‘across six continents’, however it remains predominately an organisation for Europeans (and disproportionally the British) and no conference has ever been held outside Europe (although an unsuccessful attempt was made to meet in Turkey – a proposal that highlighted some important divisions within the group). Even within Europe there is a clear division between the ability of members from North and South Europe to participate. Do we need to address these issues and find ways for increased participation from the those from south Europe and possibly more significantly, from the global South?

Independence

The 1974 manifesto stated that the European Group was ‘independent of any official agencies and is financially self-supporting.’ This has remained the case throughout its history and will hopefully continue into the future. The group, unlike other academic societies, has also made its conferences as affordable as possible. But is there more than can be done to facilitate broader participation? 

European Group’s Methods of operation

The 1974 manifesto stated that the European group was organised by an ‘annually elected Steering Committee and a permanent secretary’. The current constitution states:

The EG has a Coordinator, Secretary, Treasurer and a Steering Committee. Other members of the EG may from time to time be invited to join a ‘conference steering committee’ to help organise future conferences. This committee may also co-opt other members as and when they feel necessary for assistance.  Decision making between conferences will include participation from the EG national representatives, who are responsible for distributing information about the EG and the annual conference via national networks. The AGM is the key decision-making forum.

The wording of this is ambiguous. Are the ‘Steering Committee’ and the ‘conference steering committee’ the same or different? The provision for annual election of the steering committee stated in the 1974 manifesto is not included in the constitution and the only provision for refreshing its membership is co-option.

David Scott has offered this clarification:

The 2011 constitution was drafted by myself in 2011 and was based on the Utopian Society constitution.  It was then shared with members for revisions during 2011 and a revised version was presented at the conference AGM, where there were further revisions from the floor.  Revisions were made in real time during the AGM and the final agreed version was then agreed by the AGM.

The constitution point about “steering committee” and “conference steering committee”.  They were different.  The “conference steering committee” was set up basically to provide support to whoever was organising the annual conference.  In the early 2000s there had been a number of people who had organised EG conferences and then left a year or two after.  The sense at the time was that this was because they were carrying too heavy a burden, got burnt out, and then left.  The conference steering group was to help left this burden and was constituted and reconstituted every year by new volunteers.  The steering group itself was much more permanent.  It seems like the annual conference organising problem seemed to dissipate in the mid-late 2010s so maybe this can now go, but it may also be worthwhile checking to see how recent conference convenors have faired and if they felt they had sufficient support.

The Steering Committee has played a significant role in the history of the EG. From the archives it used to meet once or twice a year, for three days, in person, between conferences. This commitment of members and the passion of many of their discussions is frankly awesome.  An active steering committee meant that the group’s values, ethos and practices were held collectively and any changes were challenged, discussed and required a high degree of consensus. In the past when the steering committee has not been active the group’s continuation has been threatened, particularly where this has led to an over dependence on a key person. The recent lack of a steering group is therefore a matter of concern and may have contributed to a feeling of some members that the group has become detached from its values. It has also removed an important source of support for the co-ordinators.

Does the constitution need amended to specify the composition of the steering committee and the mechanisms for their election/appointment? David advised:

The steering committee was traditionally constituted by national reps.  So, whoever was national rep was automatically bon the steering committee. The national reps were voted in by the representatives of a given nation and so at that time they didn’t need to be voted onto a steering committee.  However, to widen the pool working group leads were also invited onto the steering committee and some former conference convenors.

My memory was that at some point we changed the composition, excluding the national reps. In 2018, a paper was circulated (written by Sam Fletcher) to the then steering committee proposing that:

The Steering Committee is renewed every year and consists of the following representatives: 

a) One representative for each working group

b) One representative from the EG Press

c) One representative from the EG Journal

d) The organizer of the coming conference 

e) The organizer of the past conference

f) One representative from the equality and diversity collective 

e) The coordinator collective

This was part of a wider structural review which was not progressed with (Sam from memory thinks is because it was too bureaucratic for the European Group!)

The 1974 manifesto includes an aspiration to hold ‘regular meetings, not only of the Group as a whole but through the formation of working groups’, and apart from the disruption caused by Covid, the former has been achieved every year! There are also established working groups, some more active than others. Again, maybe we need to ensure that there are ways they can refresh their membership and ensure maximum participation. The manifesto also anticipating the publishing of a newsletter, something the co-ordinators have continued. We also now have a website. The production of the newsletter and editing/managing the website require considerable work, which currently falls on the co-ordinators. Do we need to find ways of spreading this load/involving more members?

Conclusion

The website “Constitution and Values” page currently contains a set of aims drawn from the 2012 Conference address of then then co-ordinator David Scott (which places them in a clear context), the current constitution (agreed in 2011) and the EG’s 1974 Manifesto. This short paper has tried to summarise the most important aspects for a discussion on the EG’s values, some possible areas of action, and which will hopefully help inform the 12 May meeting.