interviewer: Lucy Bernal (Interviewer, Ideas Lab)
guest: Dr Simon Pemberton
record: 2012/08/02
broadcast: 2012/04/04
Intro VO: Welcome to the University of Birmingham’s Ideas Lab Predictor podcast. In each issue, we ask experts in a different field to give us inside information on key trends, upcoming events, predictions for the near future, and more.
Lucy: Today I’m joined by Birmingham Fellow Dr. Simon Pemberton. He is affiliated with both the Faculty of Social Policy and the Faculty of Law. Simon, you are divided into two schools.
Simon: That’s right.
Lucy: Please tell us what you do at the Fellowship.
Simon: My fellowship is essentially about developing the concept of social harm, developing a working definition, and ensuring that that definition is used to measure social harm within society. .
Lucy: So social harm is a criminology term?
SIMON: Well, it started from there. Social harm arises from a series of debates within criminology regarding the narrowness of the definition of crime, which essentially focuses on acts of harm to individuals, such as interpersonal violence, theft, etc. Therefore, the concept of social harm originally expanded the concept of harm to include harm caused by institutions of nation-states. Recently, however, the concept of social harm has now transcended criminology. So there is a group of writers who think that there is actually something to social harm and that it can be very helpful in trying to understand social harm. This is done to objectively and comprehensively analyze the damage that occurs within society. It is about considering the full range of harms that occur in society and understanding the types of harms that cause the greatest levels of harm and how those harms are disproportionally located among different groups within society.
Lucy: Well, let me give you an example.
SIMON: If you go back to the idea of, “Yes, can that escape criminology?” Yes, I understand, I don’t know, but there are about 600 murders a year in the UK. Of course, they cause untold suffering and destruction not only to the victim who loses their life, but also to the family and others associated with that individual. But if we consider it physical harm, we need to think about other forms of physical harm as well. For example, using the examples of deaths caused by air pollution, it is estimated that air pollution causes 20,000 deaths per year in the UK each year. Some 8,000 people die from developing cancer as a result of human work.
Lucy: Are 20,000 people dying prematurely each year in this country due to air pollution?
SIMON: Yes, that’s right.
Lucy: That’s an amazing number.
Simon: That’s right. It’s a number –
Lucy: And I’m afraid we’ll be killed.
SIMON: There are different narratives that frame these events, and the important thing is that social harm is trying to escape those narratives and basically trying to comprehensively analyze harm in society. Because there is a very high level of morality that surrounds a certain form of death and its gist. Social harm means taking a step back and thinking about harm as a preventable social phenomenon.
Lucy: So it’s about thinking about how can we prevent these deaths from occurring?
SIMON: Yes, that’s right. Obviously, crime is concerned with questions of intent and, less commonly, criminal negligence, but the point of social harm is to think of harm as a preventable event. It means that we can have a much wider lens, if we wish, to cover a variety of things that would otherwise have been excluded from the concept of crime and excluded from the jurisdiction of other social sciences. It means that we can take all the evils and think about them. Think about harm as a preventable event. So when you compare those harms, which ones are the most regular and which are the most damaging to our lives? So this is exactly the idea of defining social harms. It’s like a second element.
Lucy: So you’re looking at a sense of mission and apathy where companies pursue profits instead of taking care of their employees, which leads to cancer and other injuries in the workplace.
SIMON: Yes, that’s right. So one of the rigors of criminal law is that it has the appeal of intent. In fact, perhaps the greatest level of harm caused in our society is caused by indifference. Businesses do a lot of good for us, they create jobs, they provide us with services, but there’s also a lot of harm they cause by indifference, as you so rightly say. . But social harm also allows us to look at the fabric of society. A lot of harm occurs through the very way we organize our society in terms of harms associated with inequality, poverty and homelessness, but no one organization or one individual is necessarily responsible. But in reality, the decisions we make as a society, the way we structure our social relationships, and the way we structure our markets, create all kinds of harm.
Lucy: On the surface, it sounds great to say, “How can we reduce the chance that, say, 8,000 people will get cancer as a result of their actions at work?” The other end of the stick is, is this a health and safety crazy approach? Is this what will happen if we try to reduce this?
SIMON: There are many societies, capitalist societies, that have higher levels of regulation. To use the terminology of bureaucracy, to use the term “burden on business”, experience shows that their societies, let’s take the Scandinavian countries as an example, have much higher levels of legal regulations regarding the workplace. There seems to be a tendency for regulations to be in place. Such societies appear to be economically equal to or better than societies with fewer red tape, fewer regulations, and less stress on business. So I’m not empirically convinced that that’s necessarily proven.
Lucy: So how does the UK fare in this area of social harm compared to, say, Scandinavian countries?
SIMON: On the surface, my previous research suggests that countries like the US are actually neoliberal, but I think the UK is becoming increasingly neoliberal in governance and policy. I would like to argue that I have a thorn in my side. However, these countries exhibit higher levels of harm across a range of indicators, including inequality, economic insecurity, physical insecurity, and workplace injury and harm. At first glance, when we look at social democratic states, their institutions appear to have various aspects that protect the people within the nation-state from some of the harms that capitalism itself produces.
Lucy: So what are you worrying about when you’re lying in bed at night after doing this research?
SIMON: What worries me most is the ongoing form of analysis of harm. There is a very personal analysis of harm that dominates many debates over criminal responsibility, and even current debates over welfare. So, essentially, we’re using society in a very fragmented way, ignoring the context that determines the structures in which harm occurs. You know, there’s a beautiful line used by two American criminologists, Tift and Sullivan. They talk about how society creates situations where it is difficult for people to be good, but to me, we ignore these analyses. In practice, it means reaching smarter conclusions about levels of crime and how to prevent subsequent crime, but also in terms of thinking that seeks to explain the harms of poverty through individual behavior. It is not actually the structural organization of markets or labor markets. You know, there’s a very compelling analysis done by Danny Doering about the crime rate of murder following the economic deregulation, deindustrialization policies of the 1980s, and this is a series of incidents and murders that peaked. It shows that it has been reached. Of course, it is clear that individuals are responsible for these murders, but we also need to step back and consider the social context in which they occurred. Harm does not occur naturally or randomly. There is a reason why some capitalist countries seem to outperform others in preventing harm to their citizens, and we need to understand that.
Lucy: You’re actually saying that if we take the time to think about this and approach this differently, we might be able to make a difference.
SIMON: Yes. Although harm itself is a dark topic, there are alternative models for organizing society. We can follow those models. It’s just a matter of political will.
Lucy: Thank you, Dr. Simon Pemberton.
SIMON: Thank you.
Outro VO: This podcast and other series are available on the Ideas Lab website (www.ideaslabuk.com). On this website, you can find out how to email your comments, questions, and suggestions for future podcast topics. You’ll also find information about the free support Ideas Lab provides to TV and radio producers, new media producers, and journalists. The Ideas Lab Predictor podcast was interviewed by Lucy Vernall and produced by Sam Walter.