||paradigma, criminological theories, paradigm, Lombroso, biosociale criminologie, criminologische theorievorming, biosocial criminology, integratieve criminologie, integrative criminology
Natural born criminals: nature’s zugzwang? The paradigm of ‘biosocial criminology’ under the
This paper focuses on the paradigm of biosocial criminology and its historic evolution. We will also discuss contemporary understandings and applications. As we will see, a ‘biosocial tradition’ in Belgian criminology is absent. The critiques of Lombroso’s theories initiated a long-lasting counterproductive effect. Criminologists did not include biosocial explanations in their research, which initiated a fracture line between biosocial researchers and criminologists. Internationally, we ascertain a scientific openness to integrate biosocial research. As a result, we observe a revival of this paradigm (Blokland, Thienpont & Donker, 2005; Simons, Lei, Beach, Brody, Philibert & Gibbons, 2011; Simons, Lei, Beach, Brody, Philibert & Gibbons, 2012; Hanlon, Brook, Stratton, Jens en & Rubin, 2013; Raine, 2013). In order to fully understand these scientific ‘shifts’, it is necessary to examine the evolutions and trends of biosocial criminology. Subsequently, we must critically assess the concept ‘paradigm’. What is the position of biosocial research in criminology? Is there a possibility to integrate contemporary insights in social studies? These ethical and methodological questions require a thorough analysis. Paradigms often produce a counterproductive effect, since they can exclude other theoretical notions. An integrative research scope offers the opportunity to include various variables. Criminologists are not biologists and vice versa. If we want to work multidisciplinary (Barak, 1998; Barak, 2009) we have to create a scientific platform. Since several disciplines, such as biosocial studies, examine the nature of crime, the greatest challenge of contemporary criminology is to integrate these insights.