МІСЦЕ ГЕНЕАЛОГІЧНОГО АНАЛІЗУ У КРИМІНОЛОГІЧНІЙ МЕТОДОЛОГІЇ

Abstract

The problem of expanding research horizons and analytical capabilities of criminology is relevant and is at the forefront of scientific research. There are many approaches in modern criminology to the analysis of social phenomena. A part of them have well-formulated rules and implementation algorithms; another part exists only in the form of theoretical and methodological sketches. The genealogical approach can be considered as a variant of the latter. This method of criminological analysis that is controversial and weakly formalized can be particularly productive in relation to the study of equally ambiguous and “escaping” socio-cultural events, which are crime, its determinants, the mechanism of counteraction. An example for demonstrating the possibilities of the genealogical analysis can be the very event of postmodernism as a discourse in the criminological theory, the study of which seems to require a special approach, which is sensitive to its nuances. The genealogical analysis sets the perspective of considering such difficulties as peculiar properties, makes it possible to identify and characterize the historical connection of the event with the previous ones, to describe its peculiarity in light and contrary to the chronology. Thus, the objective of this article is to structure the key ideas of the genealogical analysis in the context of criminological issues. The revealed positions of the genealogical analysis - are the intermittence and continuity of history, separation from the causality in favor of nonlinear relationships, the struggle of events and fortuity, the lack of substance and corporeality, discourse analysis - that determine the rules of using the method, in particular during the criminological analysis of the determination problems. In particular, we talk about the following: to allocate stages and periods (how the event was interpreted, how it was conceptualized at different stages) at the level of the chronology; to refer to the analysis of ordinary and adjacent events at the level of practice; regardless of the chronological chain of events in time, to consider the relations between events as a dialogue; to consider the event as a unique branch of random conditions, to avoid causal generalizations in the analysis of the event; to allocate a lot of conditions of the event (social circumstances, concomitant events), to consider them as contributing or contradicting the researched event; to analyze the event as a discourse: to allocate conceptual notions and relationships between them taking into account both the style within the event and the relations of the event with other events.