Critical Socialism: Critical Realism And The Realist Theory

Critical Realism
Critical realist theory has the intent to correspond with the criticism of the realist ideal of science concerning neutral empirical observations: all knowledge is conceptually mediated and consequently concept-dependent (Danermark, 2006). Haslanger (2012) defines a critical realist as an individual with the aim to outline the differences that are in fact socially established but are not recognised as such; focusing on specific social structures and the impact they create. Critical realism contends, first, that there is a real world independent of our knowledge about it, and second, that it is possible to gain knowledge about this real world: facts are certainly theory dominated (Danermark, 2006). However, knowledge is always

There are many different forms of social practice and thus knowledge has varying uses in its countless social situations as a result of its weak and somewhat truthful nature (Haslanger, 2012). Critical realism further defines that a simple observation of events is not process to the obtainment of knowledge. Instead, it is the mechanisms—the real—that produce the events (the actual) in the world that we come to view within our experiences (the empirical) and ultimately creates the link between our knowledge and reality (Danermark, 2006).
Right realism is a branch of the functionalist approach, using the identification of the realistic views of the causes of crime and deviance and what constitutes as the best solution for the social control of it. In general, right realism believes that the major contributors of crime are: the breakdown in moral fabric of society, a growing underclass, a breakdown in social order, more opportunity for crime, crime is committed as a deliberate and rational choice, and finally; society is depreciated the more crime is committed, creating a

Using Haslanger’s (2012) example of ‘crop tops’, the real world is the 7th grade pre-teen girls, that have the belief or ‘facts’ that it is ‘cute’ and fashionable to wear crop tops and are therefore, influences the experiences of their world through the social interaction these girls encounter at school defining the extensions of ‘cute’. Furthermore, in relation to Lea and Young’s (1984) three causes of crime, this example of deviance/difference shows that the relative deprivation experienced in this example, is the ‘certain’ girls who wear crop tops and the ‘other’ girls who are deprived of doing so. The subculture is related to where these ‘other’ girls are unable to achieve the ‘goal’ of wearing a crop top instead wear tracksuits as a way of trying to achieve the same values in this social reality of ‘cute’. And finally, marginalisation of girls who don’t wear crop tops become ‘chubby’ girls and the girls that do wear crop tops are sexualised (Haslanger, 2012). Forms of protest here may be through the means of ‘body-shaming’ or ‘slut-shaming’ (Papadopoulos,