Time is a fundamental aspect of understanding the universe and has been the subject of much philosophical and scientific inquiry. While it is a seemingly simple concept, the time has proven to be quite complex and challenging to define. The word “time” is a noun that refers to a measurable duration, a point in time, or a specific occasion. Its usage can be both singular and plural, and the choice between the two forms depends on the context in which it is used. The discussion on the singularity or plurality of time has been ongoing for centuries, with different perspectives and arguments being presented. This essay will examine the debate on the nature of time in relation to the trends of criminology, using the two articles by Tepperman & Rickabaugh (2022) and Sharpe (2002).
Discussion
One article argues that time is a singular entity and that it is fundamental to the understanding of the world. It asserts that time is the measure of change and that it is essential for the study of criminology. The article explains that crime patterns change over time and that understanding the flow of time is crucial in analyzing crime trends (Sharpe, 2002). For example, crimes that were prevalent in the past may no longer be relevant today, and this requires a constant analysis of crime trends over time. At the same time, the article presents information in a way that supports the singularity of the time, as it is seen as a continuous and uniform flow, with events occurring one after the other in a linear sequence. Gaskill implies that previous studies on the history of crime have ignored or marginalized the importance of qualitative aspects (Sharpe, 2002). It shows that there is a connection in between various events occurred in a linear sequence in the history, which also impacts the upcoming events in the future.
According to this perspective, time is a property of the universe and does not have a plural form. This argument is based on the concept of time as a dimension, similar to space, and it is seen as a single, unbroken whole. The author argues that criminology has been moving away from a singular focus on the present moment and instead adopting a more holistic, multi-temporal perspective. This means that criminologists are considering not only the immediate causes of crime but also the longer-term and historical factors that contribute to criminal behavior.
On the other hand, Tepperman & Rickabaugh (2022) argue that time is not a singular entity but rather a plural one. The article asserts that time is a collection of moments and that each moment is unique and cannot be repeated. The authors found that British topics favored the early Victorian Era, while US-focused works focused on the late Gilded Age (Tepperman & Rickabaugh, 2022). The authors argue that historical criminologists should strive to give equal attention to all time periods and not just focus on a few eras.
The author explains that this perspective is essential in criminology because it highlights the importance of understanding the context of each moment in analyzing crime patterns. For instance, crimes committed in one moment may not have the same impact as those committed in another moment, and this requires an understanding of the unique context of each moment (Sharpe, 2002). This argument is based on the idea that time is made up of discrete moments and that these moments are not continuous but exist in isolation from one another.
In this view, time is seen as composed of multiple, interconnected moments, each of which contributes to the larger picture of crime and its causes. This perspective allows criminologists to examine the relationship between past events and present criminal behavior and to identify potential solutions that can address both the immediate and long-term causes of crime. This perspective is supported by the concept of quantum mechanics, which suggests that events in the universe occur in a series of isolated moments.
However, the multiple temporalities periodization supports the idea that time is plural by highlighting the diverse experiences of time among different individuals and communities (Tepperman & Rickabaugh, 2022). This theory suggests that time is not a uniform experience but a plural phenomenon experienced differently by different people. For example, time might be experienced differently by people of different cultures, ages, or socioeconomic backgrounds.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the debate on the singularity or plurality of time has important implications for the study of criminology. While both perspectives have their merits, the reality is that time is a complex concept that can be viewed from different angles. The trends of criminology require an understanding of both the singularity and plurality of time in order to comprehensively analyze crime patterns and make informed decisions. Whether time is seen as a singular entity or a collection of moments, it remains a fundamental concept that is essential to the study of criminology. However, the trend in criminology towards a more multi-temporal perspective reflects the idea of time as a plural concept, which allows for a more nuanced understanding of crime and its causes. By considering the multiple and interconnected moments that contribute to criminal behavior, criminologists can develop more effective solutions to address crime and reduce its impact on society.
References
Tepperman, A., & Rickabaugh, J. (2022). Historical criminology, a moving target: Understanding and challenging trends in British and American periodization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 101978.
Sharpe, J. A. (2002). Malcolm Gaskill, Crime and mentalities in early modern England. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. xiv+ 377, ISBN 0-521-57275-4. Crime, Histoire & Sociétés/Crime, History & Societies, 6(1), 127-128.
