To the Editors of the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice

We would like to thank Professor Boyd for initiating a dialogue about our special issue on Law, Crime, and Critique in Canada. Our objective in locating this issue within the CJCCJ and not a specialized critical criminology journal was to invite discussion. Professor Boyd's criticism centres on what he views to be the impracticality of critical criminology. We would like to remind him that the issue, and the language used by the contributors, is directed toward criminology scholars interested in the theoretical and epistemological challenges that currently confront critical criminology. He should also bear in mind that the contributors engage in many "direct" and "useful" political and criminal justice activities. Indeed, their work in critical criminology and their criticism of the criminal justice system emanate from these engagements and not from distant ivory tower speculation, as Professor Boyd implies.

Moreover, we agree that "simple" language certainly has a place within critical criminological research, especially when we communicate our findings to various publics. However, we are also committed to a project of criminological reflexivity, which informs our empirical studies. If criminology is to become more than a tool of domination it must examine how the broader social context, the operations of power, and the hegemonic presuppositions of everyday language influence criminological practice. This type of critical inquiry demands terminology that is anything but "simple" and this is why some of the articles are written in a more complex language.

It is also worth noting that we do not doubt the humanitarian commitments of mainstream criminology. Our opening article acknowledges that criticism is not the sole preserve of critical criminology and that all criminology is, to an extent, critical. Where we differ is with respect to our views on how best to achieve "justice." Although many critical criminologists would agree that it is crucial that ameliorative efforts of the sort promoted by some mainstream criminologists continue in the here and now, we feel it is also important to assail the structural, discursive, and ideational barriers to imagining and implementing new forms of justice. The latter project serves to remind us how benevolent criminological intentions are always in danger of corruption and co-optation and incites us to push criminology in new, unexpected directions.

Finally, we are not seeking to define ourselves against an imagined nemesis; call it "mainstream" or "conventional" criminology, or whatever. Although reference to "mainstream" criminology and criticism of certain mainstream perspectives are evident in the special issue, in general, we wish to avoid defining criminology simply as the negation of "mainstream" criminology. Such self-definition through binary opposition is too insular and unproductive. Our oppositional stance is more broadly directed against the broader social pressures, such as those forming under the auspices of neo-liberalism. If Professor Boyd took our issue as a broad indictment of and challenge to criminologists of his ilk, then he is mistaken. We are not out to instigate a criminological turf war; our critical sites are set on questions of a broader, systemic nature.

Sincerely,

Andrew Woolford and

Bryan Hogeveen